When Did 'we' Stop Being Proactive?

[neonlyte]

I sense a change, in general terms, from a proactive stance to a reactive stance.

Do you find yourself waiting for the next:
- big event
- atrosity
- post

Do you think of yourself as proactive or reactive?

How does your 'position' affect your writing?

Two things in particular got me thinking about this, one was a very young girl on the metro today who never stopped asking questions with the inimitable innocence of the young; the other was a news item of a laser that can overlay images onto the retina, medical use I thought, wrong, developed for motor mechanics because it can increase productivity 40% - translation - job lay offs. I placed these two P and R. The later could have been proactive.

NL

 

[Guest]

Good grief! The only time I think of those words are at work. Can't imagine thinking that way about Life, even cyber life.

Perdita

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Not trying to appear denser than I already am, but could some one please define."Proactive"?
thanks
~A~ hate being "PC"

 

[shereads]

I sense a change, in general terms, from a proactive stance to a reactive stance.

Do you find yourself waiting for the next:
- big event
- atrosity
- post

Do you think of yourself as proactive or reactive?

How does your 'position' affect your writing?

Two things in particular got me thinking about this, one was a very young girl on the metro today who never stopped asking questions with the inimitable innocence of the young; the other was a news item of a laser that can overlay images onto the retina, medical use I thought, wrong, developed for motor mechanics because it can increase productivity 40% - translation - job lay offs. I placed these two P and R. The later could have been proactive.

I think I know what you mean. The world is in a state of suspense - and suspension - that makes just turning on the radio or picking up a newspaper an act that requires willpower. People tend not to question very much when they're waiting to see what godawful thing will happen next.

 

[neonlyte]

Abtruse
proactive - taking the intiative of acting, rather than reacting to events

Shereads
Yes, but I think it goes further than that. Possibly media driven in the supply of information that acts to suspend reactive thought. 'wait and see what tomorrow brings' kind of attitude.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Thanks neon, that helps.
~A~ feeling empowered.

 

[shereads]

Some of the media are just now waking up from the long post-9/ll coma that turned them into automatons working for the Bush administration. Of course, the media can only report what people are willing to hear. Ratings are everything. Unless you're publicly funded, in which case it's no less dangerous to become the source of unwanted information.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Being proactive requires a desired course of action. Being reactive requires only an event. To be proactive you have to have an agenda. Since my life agenda is to take each day as it comes and do my best to find and bring smiles it is hard to do much proactive.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

I honestly do not understand this conversation. Just saying. P.

 

[Black Tulip]

Not sure, but I get the impression the 'we' in the start of this thread should be read as 'USA citizens'?

I am not suffering. Just as proactive as always.

 

[gauchecritic]

Proactive is what 'good' democracy is founded on. Governments prefer reactive.

Tried being proactive once. Got called reactionary.

Gauche

 

[neonlyte]

Let me just flesh this out to be less obtuse.

A number of 'debate' threads, for want of a better description, are and have focussed on prevalent issues generally political in foundation.

The sense I have in reading those threads is, almost without exception, that they are written from a reactive viewpoint. Yes, there are proactive views expressed, but the timbre of the content is generally reactive.

How could it not be so, in general, they address events to which a reaction is required. What I find curious is the very limited proactive horizon. When people talk about what they intend to do, their horizon is 'the next election' or 'the next piece of legislation'. And then they will react again depending upon the outcome.

The problems of the Gulf require a proactive administration willing to look far beyond the immediacy of Iraq. Some might argue the administration is proactive in taking the battle to Iraq, I would argue their stance is entirely reactive.

Shereads is right, in my opinion sighting 'media can only put out what people want to hear', does not the administration also behave reactively in assessing peoples reactions to media coverage.

So my arguement is, are 'we' simply engaged in short term reactive action, an event occurs, a response is made, depending upon public reaction another step is taken, or a policy direction changed.

Have 'we' lost sight of the long game, the proactive view?

NL

Edit to add: Gauche, your from Yorkshire, that makes you a reactionary by default.
BT - Pleased to hear it!

 

[Guest]

Tried being proactive once. Got called reactionary.

That gave me a larf, Gauche. Thanks.

Ok, Neon, now I 'get' this thread, so bowing out. Thanks anyway.

Pedita

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Shereads is right, in my opinion sighting 'media can only put out what people want to hear', does not the administration also behave reactively in assessing peoples reactions to media coverage.

So my arguement is, are 'we' simply engaged in short term reactive action, an event occurs, a response is made, depending upon public reaction another step is taken, or a policy direction changed.

Have 'we' lost sight of the long game, the proactive view?

NL

Things are clearer to me now. I think the media does manipulate us and actions are taken based on what we are allowed to know.

I think we have lost sight, sad to say, we are so busy doing the right thing, we forget to do the correct thing.
~A~

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Usually, I just find myself waiting for the next meal.

*burp*

 

[gauchecritic]

I see where you're coming from Neon (how 60's was that) but I find that the media, whilst claiming to 'mirror' the public, actually tries (and often succeeds in) leading the public.

Far from having their finger 'on' the pulse, they prefer 'being' the pulse. The sorry conclusion is that they are the pulse of the Government rather than the people.

In the long term, the man on the street doesn't actually give a fig for reactive or proactive. He cares not in the slightest what the Government does or who the Government are, unless it affects him personally and immediately.

1926, 1974 and 1984, in Britain are the only real proactive times in modern history. You could argue that they were reactive but they were undertaken to make something happen, which, in my book, makes them proactive.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

What Gauche said.

Many "popular" (esp. tabloid) newspapers don't report the news - they create it. They try to tell the drones who they should hate; who they should believe and who they should trust.

It is feeding the reactionary mentality and doing nothing to promote proactive behaviour. The only thing that has come close - in recent years - to the minor's strike of 1984, is the fuel strike. However, that was hyped up and fuelled by the media (excuse the pun), so was reactionary, not proactive.

Lou

 

[oggbashan]

I don't see myself as part of the 'we' at the start of this thread.

I spend much of my time trying to do things for my community. Some is reactive - trying to modify or stop changes that might have adverse consequences. Some is proactive - trying to plan for a better future, to raise money for community projects.

All is co-operative - working with other people and with local and national government to influence events. I, as me, can do very little. I, with others, working with City Hall and other organisations, can do a lot. If on a local issue I can broker a consensus between political parties then the politicians get the credit.

As for reacting to terrorism? The UK has had terrorists for nearly 150 years and we have learnt that to continue our way of life as unaltered as possible is the best way to frustrate them. We should take precautions and be vigiliant but we should not stop living or crawl into shelters.

Og

Plant a tree - defeat a terrorist by planning for the future.

 

[neonlyte]

but I find that the media, whilst claiming to 'mirror' the public, actually tries (and often succeeds in) leading the public.

Far from having their finger 'on' the pulse, they prefer 'being' the pulse. The sorry conclusion is that they are the pulse of the Government rather than the people.

1926, 1974 and 1984, in Britain are the only real proactive times in modern history.
Gauche

Yeh, that's pretty much as I see it. I have never understood the newspaper claim that they only report what people want to read. How do they know.? Ok, we have media choice - to a very small degree.

The Guardian (today) carries a huge article today 'slagging off' other so called environmental journalists citing that to claim global warming does not exist in the face of a virtually united scientific body of opinion is equivalent to claiming no connection between HIV and AIDS. They also report on US Environmental studies that point to global warming being the biggest threat to US stability, yet our US friends seem barely 'warmed' to the subject. Reactive position because US press rarely mentions it.

TateLou
The fuel strike was a strange one, proactive, brought a delay in tax increases then vanished, I suspect because 'the people' wanted to give Labour a chance. Don't think we will be inclined to help them out this time if things in Iraq continue their current trend.

Og
Hope you don't mind me saying, you are very much in the minority, if more people had your vision and belief that things can be changed by lobbying at local level, more things stand a chance of being changed. The government report on global warning citied the best way to reduce the effect was to allow local communities atonomy in controlling environmental issues. In fact it could reduce the impact by 70%. Want to give me odds on that coming to pass?

By the way I have just planted 4000 trees, that is not an invitation for 4000 terrorist attacks.

NL

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In the big picture, I think the USA has been in a reactive mode for a hell of a long time. It seems that we've either been trying to get back to some mythical golden age or fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo for ages now.

Since FDR, it was standard operating procedure for politicians to have a 'new vision' of the future. I don't think anyone's put forth a genuiniely new vision since maybe Kennedy. While Bush Sr talked about a New World Order, it seems that this was just newspeak for more of the same old world order, but with the USSR gone.

We don't want politicians with 'the vision thing' anymore. We want them to take us back to the way things were ten years ago.

---dr.M.

 

[CharleyH]

I sense a change, in general terms, from a proactive stance to a reactive stance.

Do you find yourself waiting for the next:
- big event
- atrosity
- post

Do you think of yourself as proactive or reactive?

How does your 'position' affect your writing?

could have been proactive.

NL

Pro-active is the quintessential word of the corporate, boxed and slaved cubicle whore, Reactive is the call of the wild, the one who does not belong in cubicle land, and gets fired, and goes on welfare . . . . ACTIVE is the call for anyone living a real fab life . . . and getting all they want . . . Revolutionary perhaps? a condundrum - YES - paradox - avant garde -

 

[KenJames]

In the big picture, I think the USA has been in a reactive mode for a hell of a long time. It seems that we've either been trying to get back to some mythical golden age or fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo for ages now.

Since FDR, it was standard operating procedure for politicians to have a 'new vision' of the future. I don't think anyone's put forth a genuiniely new vision since maybe Kennedy. While Bush Sr talked about a New World Order, it seems that this was just newspeak for more of the same old world order, but with the USSR gone.

We don't want politicians with 'the vision thing' anymore. We want them to take us back to the way things were ten years ago.

---dr.M.

The USA has always been virtually totally reactive, except for the initial land grabs.

 

[oggbashan]

Og
Hope you don't mind me saying, you are very much in the minority, if more people had your vision and belief that things can be changed by lobbying at local level, more things stand a chance of being changed. The government report on global warning citied the best way to reduce the effect was to allow local communities atonomy in controlling environmental issues. In fact it could reduce the impact by 70%. Want to give me odds on that coming to pass?

By the way I have just planted 4000 trees, that is not an invitation for 4000 terrorist attacks.

NL

I've been involved in Local Agenda 21 for some years.

The local council has increased recycling by such a massive percentage that they couldn't cope with the volume generated for a few weeks after introducing the new scheme.

They sold out of subsidised water butts and composting bins within a week, reordered four times the original quantity and sold out of them.

On the North Kent Coast an offshore wind farm is being built. To the surprise of the local authorities over 80% of those polled were in favour, with 12% 'don't know'.

We're getting there slowly. We now have three bicycle shops in the town. People shopping with bicycle trailers are a common sight.

Our local supermarket did a survey of customers last year. 60% had walked to the store.

Og

 

[shereads]

Yeh, that's pretty much as I see it. I have never understood the newspaper claim that they only report what people want to read. How do they know.? Ok, we have media choice - to a very small degree.

Their advertisers know. Advertisers spend a phenomenal amount of money to find out not only what you watch and read, but at what point during a program or a commercial or a news article, your pulse speeds up a bit - indicating excitement and involvement. They pay hundreds of people to sit in theaters or offices, wired to read the amount of sweat on their palms, their respiration rates, any clue that indicates "I like Tom Brokaw...but not when he's talking about Enron."

The media in the U.S. depends on sponsorships. Sponsors killed the TV show, "Politically Incorrect" by pulling their advertising; they were told to do so by groups who were offended by something said on the show and threatened to boycott it.

The media don't know what we want to read, but they know what their advertisers are willing to pay for. One of the darkest days in the history of journalism in the U.S. was when Roone Arledge from ABC's sports division took over the news division and announced that it would no longer be immune from ratings-based (advertiser-based) decisions.

If there were a conspiracy among the media to manipulate public opinion, it wouldn't survive a complaint from Federal Express or a threatened boycott of a news broadcast by one or two industries.

The media can't be proactive unless it's independently funded. Even NPR and public television depend on the good will of their audiences and politicians.