The Hazards Of Identity Politics

I was going to write something non-contentious for this blog but then I read about Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long Bailey’s aim to “stamp out” transphobia.

Soon afterwards came the judge’s ruling on “hate speech” in which Mr Justice Julian Knowles warned Britain is heading towards an Orwellian society if it isn’t careful.

His warning came after a police officer told  a man who tweeted on the transgender issue that his tweets would be recorded as a “non-crime hate incident”.

What exactly is that - and who decides what a “non-crime hate incident” actually is? That really is a strange phrase and yet it is said with a straight face.

The phrase Identity Politics comes to mind.

According to one definition, identity politics is “a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics”.

I thought the idea was new but I read it has been around since the 1960s. And yet it's only just caught on in a big way.

I suppose we were in the middle of a Cold War between East and West in the 1960s and united in our disdain for “the other” so perhaps it was not its time to shine.

Why has this happened now? Perhaps, since 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall - and the worldwide web of course -  we have had the chance to explore other political ideas. So, what was once a teeny pebble in a pond is now threatening to engulf empty the pond via a tidal wave. Excuse the mixed metaphor but I think that pretty much mirrors my astonishment at how a society that once seemed reasonably cohesive now appears so fragmented.

Identity makes it personal

In psychoanalytical terms, the belief is we all have a need for “the other” - the person or thing on which to project all the feelings inside us which we cannot bear to acknowledge within ourselves - so perhaps identity politics has arrived to take the place of “the other” within our lives.

 Identity is at the core of all of us. Look at small children and they’ll tell you their names, their ages, their gender ("I’m a boy, she’s a girl), who their friends are, where they live, what they like, etc. etc.

Move on a few years and we’re just the same, only we’ve added status to it: “I’m a (job title) with the implication of what my salary is (or isn’t - queue shameful feelings); I’m married, not married, gay/straight, children, no children, hobbies” again, etc. etc.

That’s how we build up a picture of ourselves and others. We communicate, we learn our own likes and dislikes at the same time as we learn about those to whom we’re drawn. Clearly that’s a positive thing to do.

I remember being told as a child that people in polite society did not talk about politics, religion and money. Conversation was surface level only. Polite, I suppose. Wow! Nowadays, if we stuck to those rules we’d be having no communication at all.

I find myself thinking how ironic it is that, when considering identity politics, I’m reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s much-derided statement on society: “There is no such thing as society”.*  

If society  - polite or otherwise - no longer represents the people, maybe that is why so-called lobby groups seem to have stepped in to fill the void.

Lobby groups have a problem of their own because they tend to represent a minority and decision makers often find it easy to ignore small groups. However, that problem can be assuaged by getting together a group of like-minded people/ideologies. Combining a fundamental belief allows the initially small group to become noisier and the voices of its members to seem louder. Therefore, in a political arena, it becomes harder to ignore them.

Exercising the right to be heard

But what happens when the conversation becomes hyper-personal? And when there is no allowance made for different views.  It’s sex - gender? - money and politics most of the time. And absolute intolerance if someone disagrees.

For somebody who is new to the world of identity politics it seems to me there is no room for discussion any more - you’re either with me or against me and I’ll either block you or abuse you, and all in public sight/site (pun intended).  

What this effectively means is, although it could be argued we’re communicating so much more than we used to, we are also communicating so much less. Original statements such as: “I’m a woman" or "I'm a man” now have to be thoughtfully worded so as not to offend, even if there’s no intention of doing so. Our communication skills seem to be decreasing at the same rate as the identity politics argument opens up and we seem to be in danger of segregating ourselves.

Wasn’t there a time when segregation was actively campaigned against - when did it come back into fashion?

Surely, if we’re being urged to embrace diversity at one level, we should be allowed to embrace it in our thought process too.

Identity politics seems counterproductive. The more we identify with one group, the more we separate ourselves from another, and another, and another. And so it goes on until we’re all in danger of experiencing some kind of identity crisis of our own, whether we like it or not.

I feel that would become unhealthy, both for us as individuals and for us as a society. 

I wonder if it’s time to diversify off this path too.

By Lulu Sinclair

*Margaret Thatcher full quote continues  "… only individuals and their families”

Photo by Emily Morter on Unsplash
Photo by Kiana Bosman on Unsplash
Photo by Micheile Henderson on Unsplash

Outing The Online Outrage

A much-admired journalist has become the latest to be scalped via the Twitter vocalites. 

He said “ABC”, his follower interpreted this as “XYZ”, retweeted the post - with his own interpretation - and the flash mob formed. Within a very short time, the newscaster fell on his own sword (forgive the excessive metaphors, I seem to be writing this in the style of hysterical tweeters) and he was gone.

Trolls, eh. What are they like? As it happens, I have recent personal experience of them. 

My last blog on this site was about Meghan and Harry in which I said I did not believe she had been the subject of racial abuse. I’d say 95% of the comments on the blog as a whole were positive, while some 5% disagreed.

Those who disagreed appeared charmingly reasonable and rational in their enjoyment of a robust and open discussion (I paraphrase) while the subtext seemed to me to be pretty vitriolic and with no desire at all to engage in real debate and discussion. My professional qualifications and skills - or lack of them, they suggested - seemed to be of particular interest.

Admittedly, I may be biased but I saw their aim as to close down any discussion and just reinforce their own views through replies to conversation they “liked” with other like-minded communicators. 

Debate, surely, is about discussion, exchange of ideas and the possibility of changing one’s mind. 

So when did debate suddenly involve silencing your opponent? My colleague (96 Harley Psychotherapy founder psychiatrist Dr Robin Lawrence) believes it started off when David Cameron was the new boy in town and multiculturalism was very much at the forefront of politics. 

I bow to his knowledge and wisdom but think it may have started even before that, perhaps with "new" Labour in 1997 and the advent of pagers, given out to the influx of MPs to ensure they were “on message” about a particular subject. 

Anything politicians can do, someone else can do better. Along came Twitter in 2006 and famous people were encouraged to join and soon realised that they could plug their own interests through this amazing medium. The more followers they gained, the higher their profile and the more they could raise their earning potential. Politicians took their time to join in with PM David Cameron’s first tweet arrive in 2012. No early adopter, he.

But the social microblogging system really blossomed when the mainstream media got in on the act, looking at the “trending” stories of the day. That started off as a good idea, a good talking point but, probably because the UK media generally enjoys a good fight, it quickly became adversarial.

“Twitter STORM … FURY over …. Someone or other ENRAGED” blazed (another exaggerated word) one or other tabloid and off we all went. Who’s not going to read about that, particularly if it’s online and you don’t have to pay for a paper.

Nowadays, we are forever in uproar. No reasoned debate (longer than the 140 characters not allowed) just an exchange of insults that quickly reaches a much wider audience when national papers get involved. So what might once have been a spat between a newscaster and his follower with some 2,000 followers of his own (still following? Well done, you) becomes a national outrage. 

I have to say, Twitter can’t be blamed. It’s a fun idea. A social media platform that allows us to air our views. I’m told users in the US are less hostile to each other than we are in the UK. I have a theory about this (no evidence so it’s not a scientific one) and that it’s to do with our feudal past. I wonder if we have a "follower" mentality and and are used to obeying rules. Therefore, if everyone is outraged or virtue-signalling like mad, it’s hard for us as individuals to say: “Hold on, I don’t agree.” We keep quiet and the herd moves on. 

It’s a worrying trend, particularly as what used to be minority groups understood the power of social media long before traditional organisations did and now seem to be in charge of the political agenda. Identity politics gives everyone the chance to accuse their opponents of some sort of “ism” which, if denied, is still an “ism” but it’s an unconscious one. We can’t have a view, we have to take a side, and it’s got to be on the side that’s the most publicly vocal, not necessarily the one that is the most logical or well reasoned. We’ve lost our rational selves and seem to be in a permanent state of emotional hysteria. 

That is not a good way to run a society. That way, as Dr Lawrence points out, madness - or least totalitarism* - lies. 

I sense some hope. The backlash against the abrupt and unreasonable ending career ending of the newscaster surprised everyone, including the journalist himself and his bosses. Maybe people are beginning to understand and question the damage such public displays of outrage are doing to us all. 

In the end, I feel that the twittersphere (I’m not rewarding its bad behaviour with a capital T) has become a bit like navel gazing. Unless used well and thoughtfully, it’s pointless and rather an unpleasant habit. Probably best to avoid it.

By Lulu Sinclair

Writer, journalist and qualified counsellor

*  Note the “ism” in that too.

Photos by:  Austin Distel on Unsplash

                   Merakist on Unsplash

                  Jack deMore on Unsplash

We Need To Talk About Meghan

In case anyone’s missed it, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are planning to step back from their roles as “senior” – their quotes, not mine – royals, separate from THE Royal Family and try to become financially independent. 

They plan to divide their time between the UK and North America and to campaign to raise awareness for good causes close to their hearts.

It would be a very unkind person who would not wish them well.

Unfortunately, that’s not quite all. 

The couple intend to keep their HRH titles, Frogmore Cottage (a pretty big house for such a small name) and, certainly for the present, a fair portion of their income that derives from the Duke’s position within the royal family. So, as the media has widely reported, they seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

I’m going to concentrate on Meghan because, before their getting together, Harry hadn’t publicly expressed any such desire. Indeed, he’d seemed to have moved from his youthful devil-may-care attitude to grown-up mode and gained a new respect from the public, who had always loved him, despite his naughty ways. He was very much part of the group and seemed to be happy with that role.

Back to Meghan. It was all so promising only a little over two years ago, the prince had got his girl and she was gorgeous. There may have been private critics, but I think the country’s feeling was overwhelmingly of good will. There’s talk now of racism, but I didn’t see any evidence of it. We live in a fairly multi-cultural society and I didn’t hear a single interviewee ever remark unasked on Meghan’s mixed-race background. She, on the other hand, referred to it a number of times. If there was any prejudice, I’m inclined to think it might have been because she was American and, as the quote goes, the US and Great Britain are two nations divided by a common language. 

It must have been hard for Meghan to arrive in a country where women married to important men are preferred to be seen rather than heard. She’s known to be opinionated, intelligent, tough and glamorous. She’s also able to cut loose when it suits her, former friends have said. In psychological terms, the ability to remove ourselves completely from those we have been close to could suggest a worryingly cut-off inner world.

Assuming Meghan’s motivation was love, she uprooted, left friends and relatives and agreed to completely change her life for love of Harry. How has it all gone wrong so quickly? 

Meghan was once quoted as saying she knew nothing about the royal family; friends dispute this and say she had a passionate interest in them, particularly Princess Diana. 

Meghan, aged 15, outside Buckingham Palace

It is possible, however, that Meghan had no idea how the monarchy worked. She may have thought she would be allowed to air her views and quickly discovered, or was told, that she could not. Perhaps she felt disappointed, frustrated and stultified.

The royals and their courtiers seem to have tried their best to help with her transition, including allowing the couple to have a six-week holiday break in the same year she’d taken maternity leave. But she expressed her unhappiness – as did Harry. After their holiday, the couple returned home without their baby. That seems unusual to me. If she intended to go straight back, why was the trip described as a holiday? 

So is it possible that nothing was ever going to be enough for Meghan?  

Here's a thought. As a counsellor, what would I say to a client with traumatic loss in his background who tells me he’s met someone with whom they want to spend the rest of their life. This person understands them completely, truly feels their pain and they, too, suffered trauma in their early life. My client feels whole with this person and my client has found the role he was searching for: a white knight and protector to his new love. I can see his self-esteem has soared. 

Over time, I hear about a few problems. His beloved started off being very charming with his family and very keen to be part of it. Now she doesn’t like the family and doesn’t attend family functions. The prospective partner no longer likes the job my client does, particularly as it involves other family members. The partner is obsessively secretive about certain aspects of her  – and my client’s – life and insists my client is “on-side” with that, even though part of the deal and financial perks of being a family member is that there is some public desire to know about my client’s immediate family life, including any children. He has done all he can to please her but now his beloved is talking about moving back to her country of origin and wants him to go with her, lock stock and barrel, while insisting that my client negotiates to retain major perks from his former work and family life. 

My client is too loved up to recognise the signs. I do and I worry.

By Lulu Sinclair

Top pic by Mark Jones - https://www.flickr.com

Resolving The Resolutions

New year. New hopes. New resolutions.

Most of us make them, even if we don’t declare them out loud. There’s something about a new collective start that brings this inner determination to do something afresh.

I read the following in a newsletter from London-based Lidgates, organic butcher to the discerning.

“Babylonians made promises to their gods at the start of each year that they would return borrowed objects and pay their debts.

“The Romans began each year by making promises to the god Janus, for whom the month of January is named.

“In the Medieval era, the knights took the "Peacock Vow" at the end of the Christmas season each year to re-affirm their commitment to chivalry.

“This tradition has many other religious parallels. During Judaism's New Year, Rosh Hashanah, through the High Holidays and culminating in Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), one is to reflect upon one's wrongdoings over the year and both seek and offer forgiveness.” 

So there we have it, religious or otherwise, this is the time of year when we feel a deep inclination to do better.

I want to give a slight word of warning here. If you’re going to make one or two, keep them achievable. 

“I’m going to go to the gym; I’m going to lose two stone; I’m going to stop drinking.” 

These ideas sound fine when you’re full, fatigued, over-partied and bloated and completely dehydrated through drink. 

They may seem less appealing one week later when you’ve got post-Christmas blues and it’s dark, dreary and cold outside. The urge to reach out and eat, drink and – dare I say it? –  even smoke, may become irresistible.

And then, instead of feeling that sense of pleasure in yourself that you’ve taken charge of whatever it was you felt needed a bit more help, you’re left (if you’re as hard on yourself as I can be) feeling a failure, and all within a week of the new year. 

If that’s the case, what hope is there for the next 51 weeks?

May I make a suggestion? Avoid the absolute. 

I’ll use those three examples above but it’s applicable to any situation. Instead of: “I’m going to …” how about “I’m going to try to/I’m going to work towards …?” 

That leaves you room for manoeuvre. If you slip up, you don’t have to turn on yourself in fury or disappointment and then attack what it was you were giving up with renewed vigour. 

The “trying to” approach is kinder and less punishing internally which means you’re more likely to get where you’re planning to go. 

Otherwise, you’re in danger instead of meeting that immediate and devilish resistance that suddenly appears to be determined to put you off your stride. For example: “I’m not going to eat that biscuit” turns into an internal dialogue with a voice that says: “Oh yes you are, why shouldn’t you? And why would you want to stop at just the one?”

This idea of course isn't just about what a person takes in from outside. It can be applied to behaviour too. Less of the setting yourself up to fail with the determined “I will” and more of the understanding “I’ll try”. 

It’s about not just being kinder to others, but kinder within yourself too. You might find it quite effective.

Happy new year!

By: Lulu Sinclair

Photo 1 by Ayo Ogunseinde on Unsplash

Photo 2 by Zera Li on Unsplash

Time To Travel Hopefully

So that’s it. It’s over. A general election – effectively a second referendum without actually naming the “R” word – and Brexit, whether we like it or not.

I’m not going to talk about that last part; opinion is probably still sharply divided. What I am going to say is I’m glad a democratic decision has at last been made. 

My relief is based on mental health grounds alone. The UK has had more than three years of anxiety around the subject and wondering what happens next and it’s not been good for most of us.

A study published in the BMJ of US trainee doctors has found they are not only stressed out by their training but also by what’s going on politically. As the shenanigans of their political masters are aired more publicly than they used to be, the fallout spreads further, across and down. 

I’m relieved a long-term study has found this because it’s always good to have evidential backup to what starts off as a gut feeling.

Here in the UK, until the recent past, we were used to grumbling politely about whatever was bothering us but for a short time and within a very confined space. We weren’t constant protesters – remember the march against the war in Iraq and how astonished everyone was that up to a million people had taken to the streets to express their views – and, mostly, we got on with our lives. That, I would suggest, is “normal” behaviour which allows us to live a reasonably healthy life.

How different we are now! Politically engaged, ranting on Twitter, not speaking to friends and families who disagree with us and generally behaving in a very un-British way. We surprised everyone – even our European friends and neighbours who thought we were stiff upper-lipped, pragmatic and not inclined to public argument. How we shocked them and how, probably, we shocked ourselves!

I don’t think it was the decision that caused the problem, it was what happened afterwards and that is what we have been left with for more than three years. 

And that is what changed on Thursday.

Again, this is not a personal political view. It is my professional observation on what happened.

Those who had changed their voting habits to enable such a huge change in the voting demographics were interviewed after they voted. They explained why they had done.

They sounded thoughtful, considerate and concerned. Some sounded pained and hurt, acknowledging that their own family values were being questioned at a fundamental level. I heard men and women saying how their father and/or grandfather “would be turning in their grave at what I’ve done”. None took his or her decision lightly.

The victor, PM Boris Johnson, acknowledged that when he spoke of voters “lending” him their votes. He knows he has to persuade them they did the right thing; otherwise, they’ll take their votes back again. 

So I suggest now is the time to celebrate the end of indecision. I remember being given advice by a doctor when I had no idea what to do with a particularly important decision I needed to consider in my personal life. “Do nothing,” he said. “And something will happen to make up your mind.”

When I wailed that I didn’t like uncertainly, he was kindly amused. “Nobody does. That’s the problem with humans. And that’s why we so often make an impetuous decision that is not right for us in the long term. We can’t bear to live with uncertainty.”

My uncertainty caused me enough grief. But it was my own problem. These past three years of uncertainty over our future as UK citizens have, however, been an enormous collective strain. The stress, seeming to stretch never endingly in front of us, became unbearable. 

We look to leaders to bear our anxiety for us, feeling we have chosen the right people to make the right choices for us as a collective group. Leaders are chosen to bear our burden and, for right or wrong reasons, they haven’t been in a position to do so. And it’s caused nationwide stress, discontent and unhappiness for much of the population.

And now it’s over. Now perhaps we can get back to enjoying the dullness of a mundane life. 

That’s what I’m looking for at any rate. I have no idea how it’s going to pan out but I’m hoping there’ll be someone out there among our political leaders with enough intelligence and skill to get us out of this mess. I’m an optimist and still believe politicians of all persuasions are trying their best on our behalf, even if we sometimes consider they are failing, or their views don’t fit with ours. 

I’m making my own decision. I’m going to free my mind from its post-2016 angst and hand back the reins of national decision-making to the newly elected politicians. Let’s hope they take care of me.

Photo by Jordan Wozniak on Unsplash

Photo by Shane Rounce on Unsplash

Going Offline To Check Online Spending

We’re entering the year’s prime-time spending period with shops and online outlets doing their best to persuade us to buy anything and everything, whether we want it or not.

There’s nothing new about this. We are part of a capitalist world that depends on people spending their hard-earned cash on items they may soon decide they don’t want. The UK’s economy is built on that premise, which may be a bit worrying if people one day decide they’ll stop spending.

We’re not at that stage yet. Indeed, some psychiatrists are suggesting that a bit of a control might be needed, at least as far as internet shopping is concerned where, according to research published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, some people are seeking treatment for compulsive shopping online.

The research of 122 people who are seeking help for such an addiction indicates, researchers say, that about 5% of adults in the Western world – or 2.5m people – are compulsive online shoppers. Psychiatrists say there’s an argument such shopping behaviour could be classed as a mental health condition or labelled as “buying-shopping disorder” (BSD).

Currently, BSD comes under the category of “other specified impulse control disorder” which takes in online gambling, video addiction and other internet-linked compulsions but the authors of the paper say it needs its own separate mental health condition so that it can be considered for serious treatment by professionals, including the NHS.

Problems connected with online shopping are slowly coming into public awareness. Amazon has announced it will turn down customers who buy and then return too many products. I was surprised at that news because I thought the point about buying online was that the shopper could decide the product was unsuitable for whatever reason.

However, further reading of Amazon’s reasons disclosed that some people get a kick out of buying and receiving their package. That is, in fact, their enjoyment. They don’t want the product for itself, they want the product for the feeling it gives them.

So, what is that all about? Again, we’re not talking about people who shop online for a product, buy it and use it, we’re talking about using online shopping as a way of subjugating our inner feelings of distress – we shop to put the lid on such feelings. The problem is that, after the process is completed, we’re back with our original uncomfortable feelings, possibly even worse so after being compounded by our spending.

At some point or other, most of us look for something to distract us from uncomfortable feelings but, the researchers say, the compulsive online shopper’s habit is linked to a higher level of anxiety and depression than offline sufferers due to the internet’s increased “availability, anonymity, accessibility and affordability”. In other words, if you have an addiction problem, it’s all too easy to feed it through online buying.

Underlying conditions such as anxiety and depression are best helped through talking therapy. Identifying the cause(s) and bringing it/them out into the open through our own awareness sometimes with the aid of a professional counsellor is a life-enhancing experience, even allowing for the bumps along the treatment road.

But it takes time and, meanwhile, if the addiction is to be contained in some way, I’d suggest looking at the six stages encompassed within Gestalt therapy’s cycle of experience. It’s a good way for a therapist to understand what may be going on with the compulsive online shopper and also for the addicted person to consider what may be driving them into a pattern of behaviour that is not at all beneficial for them.

The cycle starts with a “sensation”, a feeling or desire within the self. The person (shopper in this case) then has an “awareness” of the sensation which leads to “excitement”, creating an energy to do something about the situation. Next comes the “action” – look online, check out the products, see what you like, reach for credit card/PayPal details and ping, press that button!

After “action” comes “contact”, the reward for what you’ve done. You’ve ordered a parcel, it’s arrived. You unpack it, check it, make sure it’s what you want and experience the pleasure you’re feeling at your gain. From there, the idea is that you move on to the final “withdrawal” stage when you pause and give yourself some time to enjoy what you’ve done –researched, bought, received and enjoyed your purchase. The withdrawal stage is crucial. It allows you to absorb and feel the whole experience and to process it fully.

This is a cycle we work through all the time, although we’re unlikely to be aware of it. Maybe we need to consider its value. It's useful not only to appreciate the “now” moment of our pleasures but as a way of containing some of our not-so-worthwhile habits, in an almost counter-intuitive way. 

For instance, put the list of actions and their meanings somewhere readable near the computer. If the temptation to shop arises, return to your list and reflect on what’s going on inside. Go through all the stages slowly, thoughtfully and paying real attention.

Before pressing the “go” button, ask yourself if what you’re doing is going to make you happier long term.

If yes, press that button. If there’s even a hesitation before answering, think again.  

Photo by freestocks.org on Unsplash

Photo by rupixen.com on Unsplash

Breaking Bad ... Habits

It’s recently been announced that the handling of mobile phones in cars is to be banned. The idea is that smart roadside cameras will be able to zone in to drivers who simply touch their phones and the drivers will be in for an instant fine – no excuses to be accepted.

It would be hard to argue with that decision. The problem is that it should be been declared to use a mobile phone in a vehicle when mobile phones were first introduced. The question was raised but the PM of the time – Tony Blair – said he didn’t see a need for such a measure.

Now, more than 20 years on, mobile phones are not just a useful accessory, they have become part of our being. We are told by researchers that children are “addicted” to them and spend up to three hours a day on such devices (I’m imagining the researchers are talking about social media use on tablets and computers as well as mobiles) so that certainly can be classed as a habit. Fortunately, children have not yet become drivers.

But, wait a minute, anyone who drives around a big city – let’s take London for example – can see that adults have the habit too. Stuck in traffic, a driver can often be spotted looking down. S/he may be reading a magazine, but it doesn’t seem too likely. There’s the quick eye movement and downward gaze, then the upward glance to check the traffic, then down again and, maybe, a slight movement of the hand as they put together a quick text. It’s barely noticeable but if you’ve ever done it yourself, you’ll know the signs.

Now, after the recent ruling, anyone caught anywhere near their phone while driving is going to be in trouble – so how to break the habit? 

Like all habits we want to discard, it’s easier not to go there in the first place. Smoking, excessive drinking, over-eating, drugs, sex addiction – we all know it would have been better if we’d never started. But we are where we are and the mobile in the car habit is one that has to go.

A habit is difficult to break because it’s something that creeps up on us, that we’ve grown comfortable with and now enjoy. While we know it may not be good for us for any number of reasons, the feeling that we get from that same habit makes it difficult to let go. Mark Twain once explained he found it easy to give up smoking because, he said, he’d done it many times before.

In the case of the mobile phone and driving, this isn’t something we can “hide in plain sight”. Twain didn’t have high-definition cameras ready to catch him out and face a hefty fine if he carried on puffing.  

We live in a fast-moving world and many of us see it as a badge of honour that we can multi-task – dealing with emails, messages, texts whatever – while on the go. We’re used to operating a quick response policy, it shows that we’re efficient and on message; any time, any place, anywhere. 

Also, we may be afraid of missing out, one of the new challenges of the 21^st century. Something might be happening somewhere that we discover about too late and we are left out. How alarming might that be!

Usually, habits take some time to change and there may be a couple of false starts before we achieve our aim. 

Unfortunately, with the mobile, we need to change that habit pretty smartly so, in this case, I’d suggest it’s time to take a step back and wonder what all this frenetic activity and thought is all about. Is it really us or is it manufactured by the world outside to make “us” feel the need to use every second of our waking day productively? Maybe all this freneticism is contributing to the imbalance those of us who live in the developed world are increasingly experiencing.

How about using a car journey as a way of being absolutely present and in the moment? Start off by imagining the experience of every action of your journey, starting from unlocking the car door and making yourself comfortable in the driver’s seat. Imagine what comes after turning on the ignition (you’ll probably have forgotten because we go into our own automatic pilot if we’ve been driving a while) and take it from there. 

When you’ve taken one or two test drives in your head, turn your mobile off and go out and do it for real, this time noticing everything around you, including how you feel without the comfort blanket of the mobile at your side. It could be difficult at first, maybe a bit of a sense of anxiety with that niggling feeling of having left something behind. But, in the end, after a few more stop-starts and kangaroo hops on the road, and a little perseverance, you’ll wonder why you ever thought you couldn’t do without it. 

The next step – after a time spent reflecting on and enjoying how your achievement – is to try the same method with any other habit you feel has outlived its usefulness. Good luck. All is possible.

(Clearly, this blog is not for people who do not and have never used mobiles when driving. That is the exemplary standard to which we should all have aspired. It’s for those who have aspired, and missed, but know now this is the only way to travel. Both hands on the wheel, looking ahead observantly and ready to enjoy the journey – with no noisy distractions to put you off.)

By Lulu Sinclair 

Photo 1 by Damir Kopezhanov on Unsplash