Escape from the Matrix: Social Constructs are the Key to Conscious Evolution
I’ve been asked before: how do you balance your spirituality with your rational, science-based perspective? The answer, in its simplest form, is that I don’t believe these are two separate things. That’s both my rational brain talking, and my view of them from a nondual perspective.
What follows here is more or less a summary and explanation of my personal interpretation of spiritual philosophy grounded in a scientific perspective that doesn’t specifically place humans at the center of the universe.
Before we get into social constructs, we have to understand two things:
1) Science is concerned with studying the material: things which are tangible and objectively measurable. This includes physical matter and energy – the things which make up our objective physical world.
2) Consciousness is immaterial. Our thoughts, ideas, and awareness can only be studied through behavioral observation and self-reporting, and because it’s self-reported, it is subjective. Sociology and psychology are how science attempts to study the immaterial.
A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. It exists because humans agree that it exists.
Social constructs are how the immaterial is made manifest: they’re the result of the beliefs humans hold and the behaviors that result from them. It’s how we, as a collective, give meaning to our physical world. This includes our ideas about topics such as gender, race, and sexuality.
By recognizing that much of our reality is socially constructed, we can work on creating a more inclusive world that more accurately recognizes the full range and diversity of human experiences.
In the fields of sociology, social ontology, and communication theory, social constructionism proposes that certain ideas about physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of the pure observation of said physical reality. – source
The idea emerges from postmodern and poststructural theories in cultural studies and sociology. It highlights how concepts like race, gender roles, and beauty are not natural or normal from a material standpoint. – source
Psychologists and social scientists study socially constructed reality in order to better understand how groups of people create social phenomena. They seek to understand how people participate in the construction and institutionalization of their perceived reality. – source
The matrix is the totality of our socially constructed reality. It includes anything which exists in the world which is not tangible, such as:
- The concept of identity – race, gender, ethnicity, sex, self
- Nationality – government, countries, culture, language
- Family, love, marriage, monogamy
- Religion, morality, good and evil
- Beauty, age
- Laws and rules
- Money and property
- Mental illness and intelligence
- Social class and hierarchy
- Power, value
In other words, the matrix is our collective consciousness.
Collective consciousness, collective conscience, or collective conscious is the set of shared beliefs, ideas, and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society. In general, it does not refer to the specifically moral conscience, but to a shared understanding of social norms. – source
When human beings deviate from the socially agreed upon construct of what is normal behavior, we categorize it as a personality disorder. When human beings react unfavorably to the agreed upon social construct of how we construe identity or societal structures, or the rules we make which people have to abide by to survive, we categorize them as mentally ill or socially deviant, which is also a construct.
Some researchers argue that even physical illnesses are socially constructed at the experiential level, based on how individuals come to understand and live with their illness.
How do you figure out what is and isn’t a construct?
If you have to collectively decide what constitutes the thing in order to measure it, then it’s most likely a social construct. It means that different people have different perceptions of what the thing is, which makes the thing subjective (and immaterial, to maintain the same terminology which we were using earlier).
Things which are not constructs can be objectively observed and defined with little need to discuss. These are things that exist or are true no matter what anyone thinks. Gravity exists independently of whether you believe in it or not. The earth is round, whether or not you believe it (sorry flat earthers…). The same can be said for other scientific laws like the law of thermodynamics.
These are things which are able to be reliably and repeatedly observed, measured, and tested. An overly simplistic example:
A rock weighs 80 tons.
Tons, the unit of measurement, is a social construct. We made it up. So is the label we’ve given the rock (language is also a social construct). But the fact that the rock itself is physical, tangible, and has mass which is measurable means that the rock, and its mass, are not social constructs.
We don’t have to collectively decide that the rock exists or that it carries weight. Every single able-bodied person can see the rock, touch the rock, and try to lift the rock. Everyone has the opportunity to observe it.
This is our objective, measurable reality.
People who ignore this objective, measurable reality would be considered delusional.
Likewise, we can measure the tangible, objective effects of social constructs on society by defining what they are and understanding how they interact. This is where the soft sciences like sociology and psychology come into play.
People who choose to ignore this data are willfully ignorant at best and delusional at worst.
Some Social Constructs Are Rooted in Physical Reality
Some social constructs are made up of and defined by a cluster of objectively observable material things. For example, the concept of biological sex (male vs. female) is a social construct. We categorize specific parts of the body using it (chromosomes, hormones, gonads, hair, muscle mass…).
“Sex” is a human word for the observation that many different things are somewhat correlated. Some things tend to appear together: more muscle mass, testosterone, testicles, Y chromosomes, SCOTUS seats, jail sentences, body hair, height, shorter life expectancy… all correlated. Because we see all of those things more or less tend to go together, and people like finding & naming patterns, we group people into categories–male and female–then call that categorization sex.
Importantly, though, sex is not any of the physical things in a body (chromosomes, hormones, gonads, hair, muscle mass…), nor is it any of the social things in a life (outfits, jobs, interests, actions…)
Sex – male and female – is our name for the correlations among them. It’s a human idea, so “sex is a social construct” in the sense that sex is an idea people discussed together (social) and built up (constructed). Of course we constructed sex using observations of “real things” in the world, gonads and so on. – source
But we constructed sex imperfectly as a binary, rather than more accurately as a spectrum, because not all of those observable material objects cluster together in a purely binary fashion. Intersex people who inhabit physical aspects of both categories do exist. So this is a way that “the matrix” distorts our understanding of reality by creating self-perpetuating biases, or “programs” or “implants” as some of the New Age channelers might call them.
Some of these social biases/programs include:
- Racism – can only exist through dominance and subordination (social hierarchy)
- Sexism – can only exist through the gender/sex binary (social hierarchy)
- Patriarchy – can only exist through the gender/sex binary and dominance and subordination (social hierarchy)
- Classism – can only exist through dominance and subordination (social hierarchy)
- Power dynamics a.k.a. domination and subordination (social hierarchy)
Even though the majority of humans believe that sex is binary and biological in nature, determined by a rigid categorization system of physical characteristics, science currently recognizes that it is a social construct:
Sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation are complex, interrelated constructs that are conceptually distinct. In practice, sex and gender are often conflated under the assumption that they are mutually determined and do not differ from each other, despite a widespread understanding that sex refers to biological characteristics and gender refers to social and behavioral characteristics (Hall et al., 2021; Schudson, Beischel, and van Anders, 2019; Westbrook and Saperstein, 2015).
Sex is a multidimensional construct based on a cluster of anatomical and physiological traits that include external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones.
Sex in Western cultures is typically assigned at birth by medical professionals as either male or female, based solely on visual inspection of external genitalia. Sex traits are often assumed to be unambiguous and correspond to a single sex; however, sex traits may not all correspond to the same sex or with these binary categories, and thus with sex assigned at birth. For example, people who are intersex or have differences in sex development (DSD) have traits that do not correspond to a single sex. Some sex traits may change or be altered over time, making sex both a complex and temporally fluid concept.
– Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation; Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2022 Mar 9.
The very fact that a group of scientists can convene to decide what constitutes “sex” is proof in and of itself that sex is a social construct. We don’t have to collectively decide that sexual anatomy exists, or that chromosomes, etc. exist, but we do have to decide what their role is in determining the thing that we have decided to call sex, hence why sex is a construct.
Similarly, race is socially constructed mechanism for categorizing collections of physical attributes (and incidentally didn’t exist until the early 1800s). Likewise, species are also social constructions. We are all animals.
The concept of virginity is a social construct. It is a concept that society has decided exists and that is used to mark a before and after for the onset of sexual intercourse. However, it is not something that physically exists in the real world.
People who insist that sex can be reduced to chromosomes ignore the complexity of society, identity, and even science itself in an attempt to reduce sex and gender to something which confirms their subjective perception of reality. This is confirmation bias in action.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. – source
This resistance to factual information which is contradictory to their existing beliefs and biases is what psychologist Leon Festinger called cognitive dissonance.
As mentioned earlier, continued willful ignorance of and resistance to factual evidence (a.k.a. reality) can be considered delusional.
Delusion: a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
When you have willfully ignorant people who refuse to accept reality attempting to create definitions of sex and gender, excluding the actual evidence for and input of people who are nonbinary or intersex, they are essentially attempting to impose their own flawed, biased, and delusional perception of reality onto the rest of the world. They’re trying to force something to be real which is out of alignment with material reality.
Eastern spiritual teachings even talk about this – how we live in a delusion of our own making. We create our own delusional realities bound by false beliefs and ideologies, not the physical reality in front of us:
Avidyā is a Vedic Sanskrit word, and is a compound of a- prefix and vidya, meaning “not vidya”. The word vidya is derived from the Sanskrit root vid, which means “to see, to knowingly-see, to know”. Therefore, avidya means to “not see, not know”.
In Vedic literature, avidya refers to “ignorance, spiritual ignorance, illusion”; in early Buddhist texts, states Monier-Williams, it means “ignorance with non-existence”.
Avidya is explained in different ways or on different levels within different Buddhist teachings or traditions. On the most fundamental level, it is ignorance or misunderstanding of the nature of reality; more specifically about the nature of not-Self and dependent origination doctrines. Avidya is not lack of information, states Peter Harvey, but a “more deep seated misperception of reality”.
In other words, avidya is the misconception that “self” is material. Vidya is the recognition that “self” is an immaterial construct that only exists in our minds. This is our ego.
The vast majority of things which humans squabble over on a regular basis is a social construct. We squabble because we disagree about whether or not it’s a construct (like with sex and gender) or we disagree about the psychological or physical ramifications of those constructs (like with racism, classism, sexism, and climate change).
We’re literally debating about the nature of our collective reality.
The problem is that some of the positions which are being debated are rooted in a denial of physical reality. Climate change is real. It is tangible, and measurable. Sex and gender and even sexual orientation are constructs, therefore, trans and nonbinary and queer people – and animals! – exist, and because they exist, they are natural. This doesn’t mean they are wrong, it means our categorizations of sex and gender are wrong and we need to expand them to be more inclusive of our actual physical reality and the experiences of the people in it.
What are some other social constructs and what is their impact on reality?
Most of our reality is a social construct. That means it’s more or less a made-up thing. A “virtual reality” if you will. Even our very identities are a construct. The person you believe you are only exists because you say that you do and other people agree that you are who you say you are.
Money is a social construct. It only has meaning because we have all collectively decided to use it as a promissory note. It’s a number in your bank’s software program, and a very inconsistent measuring device for units of output which is entirely controlled by subjective perceptions. The monetary value of goods and services are subjective and relative, as all value is.
The concept of property is also a social construct, and one that doesn’t even exist in some cultures. Many indigenous cultures have no concept of land ownership in their culture. They do not believe that you can own nature, because nature is a system which we are all a part of, like plants and animals. They believe we can steward the land, and use the land, but they do not believe that it can be owned.
Psychology itself is a social construct and feedback loop.
Psychology is not a hard science because it doesn’t study the material (as we discussed in the beginning of this article), and thus, it cannot be studied via the scientific method. It’s based on observations of a human psyche’s own understanding of itself.
The human mind is the thing that creates social constructs, and one of its social constructs (the field of psychology) was created to study itself. How wild is that?
The human mind itself is influenced by the social construct in which it exists and simultaneously, its participation in said construct is the only thing that perpetuates these constructs.
Psychology is a construct informed by constructs –– it’s perhaps one of the most subjective things there is, but it’s the only viable method we have for studying ourselves.
Morality is a socially constructed process. What we as a collective determine to be good or evil is entirely dependent on one’s culture and time period, thus, no individual alone can ever be moral or immoral. They are only judged moral or immoral in relation to the socially agreed upon morality of the time and place.
Good and evil are the result of the social construct of morality, which enables many types of hierarchy because they create a system of value. This is what spiritualists call duality. Nonduality is neutral and values nothing, or else it values everything equally (and which way you choose to view that neutrality indicates how you value them!).
Nonduality (or moral neutrality) enables us to see cause and effect rather than good and evil. When we can see something as cause and effect, we can choose to engage with it not out of shame, guilt, or fear or promise of reward, but from a conscious place of active, informed, compassionate choice. True free will – and true free thinking – not the kind that’s actually habit, pattern, repetition, or survival-based. This enables us to make conscious choices which are based on mutually beneficial, utilitarian goals rooted in empathy and collaboration rather than rigid, unexamined moral imperatives.
That’s what enlightenment is: the ability to see the true nature of reality beyond subconscious programming and subjective, biased personal truths. That subconscious programming goes as deep as our very survival mechanisms – our lizard brain.
As soon as human beings gained the ability to reason and consciously interact with their environment, they began creating social constructs as a way of manipulating that environment. That manipulation of the environment is what spiritualists call manifestation. It’s our ability to imagine possibility (what some call divine feminine energy) coupled with the ability to act on it (what some label divine masculine energy) which creates all socially constructed reality. The matrix exists because we created it and we perpetuate it through our thoughts and beliefs about it.
Our social constructs have real, physical consequences on the planet and on us.
Climate change is a global manifestation of our social constructs. It’s their impact on the physical world.
We collectively manipulate our reality and then as a result, we evolve to adapt to the consequences of that manipulation. It’s a cyclical, self-perpetuated evolution. Even our physiology evolves to adapt to the consequences of our own making:
A new study suggests that humans are evolving at a faster rate than at any point in the past 250 years.
“The median artery is not the only example of ongoing human evolution. Many babies are being born without wisdom teeth. Dr Lucas said faces are becoming a lot shorter, with smaller jaws meaning there is less room for teeth.
One of the fastest movers is the human jaw, which has been steadily shrinking over the last 10,000 years, as the invention of agriculture and cooking gave us softer foods that need less chewing.
“This is happening in time as we have learnt to use fire and process foods more. A lot of people are just being born without wisdom teeth,” she said.”
The Magic is Actually the Mundane
What if I told you that we actually can’t leave the matrix (unless we die)? That in order to do that, it would mean that we’d have to go back to being the less evolved animals we were a couple of million years ago?
The creation of social constructs was both a consequence of and necessary catalyst for human evolution, both physically and consciously. Without social constructs, we would cease to be human as we know it, just like without an ego, we would cease to be human as we know it.
Our ability to generate complex social constructs is what appears to distinguish us from other life on this planet. Our awareness of self and our ability to reflect on self may not be unique, however. Animals do create social constructs – all creatures that interact with one another do, especially those that live in communities. They also have intelligence, it’s just not the same as our own in terms of their capacity for manipulating their environment – yet. Mostly because they lack the opposable thumbs that would make it easier, but that’s not to say that the level of complexity they have evolved isn’t as developed as ours, it just exists within the confines of their respective physiologies. In other words, social complexity is relative.
Seeing ourselves as separate from and better-than nature while placing ourselves at the top of an intelligence hierarchy is the Western cultural lens in action and it’s one of the main differences between Western views of self vs. indigenous views of self.
Our ability to view ourselves in this way is made possible by our socially constructed identity, which we discussed earlier: the human ego – the thing that psychology attempts to study, and the thing that spirituality attempts to keep in check.
We’re now in the bizarre world of metaphysics: the space where the immaterial becomes the material.
Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.
You’re an immaterial observer consciousness inhabiting a thinking, feeling, self-reflecting biological flesh suit in a mostly made-up world which exists only in our collective minds. How wild is that?
Welcome to enlightenment: this is the true nature of reality.
But here’s the catch: while we’re seeing the true nature of reality beyond subconscious programming, we also have to remain anchored in it. The way we remain anchored in it is through our nervous system and our emotional responses and physical sensations (embodiment). The greater our capacity to feel our emotions, the more present we can be and the more we can witness the experience of our own humanity. Our realness. Our aliveness.
Our ability to imagine a thing and then build it in the physical world is quite literally our ability to manifest, but that manifestation happens through intention aligned with direct action, not just intention alone as many a Law of Attraction believer claims.
We do that by becoming conscious of social constructs and owning our ability to collectively change them through eliminating our biases and changing our minds about the meaning which we give to the world around us.
In other words, the only way for us to “ascend to a higher level of consciousness” as per New Ager doctrine is to stay in the matrix, because so-called “5D consciousness” is also a social construct, and we cannot consciously evolve outside of social constructs. We require other people to catalyze our physiological and societal evolution, quite literally. Our conscious evolution is what leads/drives our social and physical evolution, at least during this particular epoch.
What spiritual folks label the masculine and feminine aspects of our collective psyche – our right-brain intellectual orientation and our left-brain creative orientation – are a system of evolutionary checks and balances in a way. When one goes too far (the logic, reason – what we have categorized as the divine masculine), its own manipulation of the environment catalyzes a growth in the other (emotion, feeling – what we have categorized as the divine feminine), and vice versa.
From a physical standpoint, there’s always the chance we extinct ourselves before we make it to the next level, and that’s why it’s really important that we embrace this whole wokeness thing. It is anti-conscious evolution, anti-5D, and anti-divine feminine to try to suppress it. It’s the very Christ Consciousness New Agers say they’re waiting for.
This thing that which they label as “Christ Consciousness” isn’t magical. It’s simply having the nervous system capacity to affect physical change in your environment from a truly conscious and self-aware state, free of social biases and the fear and trauma of oppressive systems or fear of death (survival drives).
It’s my personal view that spirituality is the convergence point between science, philosophy, and psychology. Incidentally, the combination of all of those things are the five elements in occult theory. Earth, air, water, and fire are all matter and energy and thus, the material. Then there’s spirit, the immaterial, which is consciousness; and then there’s emotion, which is the bridge between the mind and the body, the immaterial and the material, spirit and the physical world, via the connection between the brain and the nervous system – your heart, if you will.
Don’t conflate consciousness with the mind (intellect). The mind is the ego, which is a construct. Consciousness is the awareness which observes the mind. Consciousness is “God” witnessing itself. As such, the whole concept of a mind/body/spirit cannot really be fully separated. The mind is the body and the body is the mind. Science and psychology are metaphysics. The material is the immaterial and vice versa. We’re trying to pull things apart that don’t actually come apart. That’s us creating “the illusion of separation,” a.k.a. duality. True consciousness, in a spiritual sense, is the awareness of that duality, specifically. Not just in general. Metaphysics is the study of all of that.
Can science find a specific link between the material and immaterial? The area where one literally becomes the other, where nothing becomes something? The spark of creation (which is imagination)? Maybe. These guys think it’s got to do with microtubules in your cells – and that of other plants and animals – doing spooky quantum shit. Who knows? They might be onto something.
So anyway, the mystics will tell you that science and spirituality are the same damn thing or that they will one day merge. The charlatans will try to use science to confirm their own biases.
What I think the mystics really mean is that we’ve created two separate social constructs through which we collectively study and examine one reality: one we call Science and and one we call Spirituality, and they are actually the same collection of things being observed through two different lenses, but our level of conscious awareness hasn’t expanded enough to actually recognize it yet. We still view it as a dualistic binary.
I constantly tell people that the magic is in the mundane. Science and spirituality are both observing and speaking the about the same thing, but using a different language and few people have adequately translated one of those languages into the other, mainly because New Agers insist on viewing it through a magical lens and using nonsensical jargon that no one else can comprehend (many times not even themselves) instead of plain language.
This leads to a lot of confusion about what spirituality actually is and its overarching goals. A lot of spiritual folks these days seem to think it’s got something to do with ascending out of this reality and into a new one through “raising our vibration” via changing our thoughts, but…
What if I told you that the goal isn’t to leave the matrix, it’s to transform it?
Sometimes you’ll see people online, including New Agers, arguing against social justice-oriented political action using the “everything is a construct” argument. In essence, they believe that because something is a construct, it isn’t real, and therefore we can simply walk away from it any time we choose.
Here’s the problem with that:
New Agers specifically often mistakenly believe that we can do this on an individual level which is our Western, individualist bias. You can only do this to a limited degree. Until the rest of the collective follows suit about what these constructs mean, they will still have a tangible impact on our individual and collective lives whether or not we actually buy into them, because our socially constructed world is built and operates around them, and they determine much of what we experience and have access to.
Social constructs are a set of deeply held beliefs and ideas which people think of as “Truth.” This is often the underlying basis when someone goes around spouting off about speaking “their truth.” Your truth isn’t always the Truth. More often than not, it’s just your own biased beliefs.
Psychologically speaking, human beings aren’t even equipped to simply pivot those kinds of deeply held beliefs on a dime. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the backfire effect kick in:
The backfire effect is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs to reject that evidence, and to strengthen their support of their original stance. Essentially, the backfire effect means that showing people evidence which proves that they are wrong is often ineffective, and can actually end up backfiring, by causing them to support their original stance more strongly than they previously did.
As such, the backfire effect is a subtype of the confirmation bias, which is a cognitive bias that can cause people to reject information which contradicts their beliefs, or to interpret information in a way that confirms those beliefs.
In order to change your mind, you have to go through a deconstruction process first (and as mentioned earlier, socially constructed systems still have an impact whether or not you, yourself, have deconstructed).
Deconstruction is more or less social deprogramming.
We have to really dig into all of the nooks and crannies of our psyche where these biases and social constructs have taken hold and we have to also dismantle their physical manifestations in the real world. Because, as mentioned above, even though race, gender, sex, money, etc. are constructs, they still have real-world consequences and impact.
For as long as we live traumatized under the manufactured survival stresses generated by the consequences of our own social constructs like poverty, competition for resources, or social status (read: capitalism), it’s very very difficult to be truly in-the-moment, thus these “programs” in the matrix of our social constructs and belief systems which we call oppressive systems and biases act like a computer virus to our nervous systems, slowing down our ability to feel, be present, and make grounded, logical, conscious decisions. Instead, we make decisions out of fear and survival, which manifest in our collective reality as more oppressive social constructs which perpetrate more trauma – the consequences of the collection of our individual actions.
This is why political awakening is important and necessary. Until we have a political awakening, there is no awakening. Deconstruction and abolition are the formula for social change.
By political, I don’t specifically mean government, political parties, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. That’s a very narrow sliver of the totality of political science, which encompasses the study of power; of humans and their political behavior, the social issues which politics revolve around, our history, and our social constructs themselves, both directly and indirectly.
By political awakening, I mean the awareness of the social action which is required to consciously make changes to our social constructs, not just policies. The “wokeness” that everyone hates? Anarchism and abolition? This is literally the way to manifest an enlightened society built by and for people evolving to a new level of consciousness – a new nervous system capacity to hold more empathy and emotion, and more awareness of our humanity, both individually and collectively.
Deconstruction of our mind is the first step, and then we have to abolish behaviors and systems as we deconstruct.
New Agers often believe they are helping to bring about a new world by refusing to engage in politics or actual abolition, because they mistakenly believe that all political discussion is synonymous with government and deem the messy process of deconstruction and advocating for those with less power in the political hierarchy as “divisive.”
What they’re really doing is helping to maintain and uphold existing systems of power and hierarchy whilst enabling a slow descent into facism by refusing to examine them within themselves and denying their existence in society.
Authoritarianism research, starting with Adorno et al. (1950), has shown a consistent relationship between measures of authoritarian ideology and various measures of prejudice. Similarly, the relationship between authoritarianism and threat perception is well documented, as are the relationships between authoritarianism and support for antidemocratic behaviors including political intolerance, restrictions on civil liberties, and support for political violence.
– Dunwoody, Gershtenson, Plane, Upchurch-Poole. 2022. The fascist authoritarian model of illiberal democracy. Frontiers in Political Science, 10 August 2022
Sec. Elections and Representation Volume 4 – 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.907681
Only when systems of oppression and the internal prejudices which perpetuate them are dismantled on a collective level can any of us ever be truly free enough from the matrix to maintain an enlightened state of being: literally just “being”. Feeling. Happy. Joyful. Pleasurable. The Divine Feminine embodied. None of us are free until we are all free.
This is why there’s a war on “wokeness” right now. The people fighting against it are acting out a power grab. In order to maintain power, they have to keep things the same way they’ve always been, and to do that, they have to find ways to demonize social justice movements and societal change and (re)enforce their distorted version of reality on the rest of the world.
The leaps in progress around social issues that we’ve made over the last ten years, and in particular the awareness about racism what was thrust into the spotlight over the last three is eliciting a backlash from the powers that be who do not want to lose their place in the social hierarchy. As Antonio Gramsci wrote from the confines of a fascist prison, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”
For more discussion about social constructs and their implications for things like climate change, abortion, morality, social media influencers and more, you can check out my “constructs” Instagram highlight.
Thanks for being here,
Enjoy this post? Subscribe to get ass-kicking inspiration delivered to your inbox.
Got a question? Submit it to me via email.
Send me a question that you want me to cover in a future blog post to firstname.lastname@example.org or use the button below.
SUPPORT MY WORK
If you benefit from the free educational content I provide and would like to further support my ability to provide these resources, you can purchase a business consultation, or make a donation: