Skip to main content

The Shapers of Ourselves

Last evening, I was listening to Icelandic composer Johann Johannsson, whose music is a delight to hear. Most recently, he composed the soundtrack to the film The Theory of Everything, but I have known and listened to his alternately haunting and moving music for years before that. His powers are on full display in his Fordlandia album, music inspired by the failed experiment of Henry Ford, such as this extended piece below.


It made me wonder just what it is about the character of Iceland that has crafted artists like Johannsson, like Sigur Ros or Olafur Arnalds. For that matter, what was it about Russia that crafted Tolstoy and Dostoevsky? Not too many years ago, some doyens of English literary criticism insisted that the work of an author was to be analyzed without the context of the author's life, which would also exclude considering the larger culture at the time. This was a paltry view, to my mind, for we are products of our culture and do not exist independently of it. We may not often be aware of how what we think, what we value, and even how we say what we say, is shaped by the culture in which we live, flowing around us often unseen. If you could have taken Dostoevsky and put him in England instead of Russia, he would not have become the Dostoevsky we know. He may still have been a writer, but growing up in England might have meant that he ended up sounding more like Dickens or Conrad.

This is to my mind one of the problems with the idea that we alone are the shapers of our own destiny. We exist only in context of that which is around us, the I that we know ourselves as shaped by countless factors we do not even consider. We are shaped not only by the culture in which we live, but by our biology, by the long history of evolution on this planet. We are shaped by the environment around us, by the parents we have, by the school we go to and the friends we make. All of these factors and more come together to create who we are in this moment. 

Oftentimes in an age where more of us are living alone, where we continue to separate out, cocooned in our own lives and wrapped around our own devices even in a room full of other people, it is easy to feel a tinge of loneliness. We may be alone at the moment, but we do not exist alone. Science no longer supports the idea of a Great Chain of Being, but has revealed something infinitely more complex and beautiful. We exist as part of a great, ever-branching tree of life, related to every other living thing in the world, and all the extinct ones too. The DNA that shapes who we are is part of an unbroken thread that goes back to the very first spark of life on the planet, the elements that make up our bodies going back to the death of the very oldest stars in the universe. 

We are, in a very real sense, a part of this world, and the atoms that have come together to make up our bodies will go on in other forms long after we ourselves do not exist, the energy that propels us recycled back into the environment that created us. While we are here, we play a part, however small, in shaping the world as we've found it, and that world, that culture, shapes those who come after. Not immortality in the sense that so many have longed for and sought, but it is an oddly hopeful thought nonetheless. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...