So, there I was sitting in a group of friends, enjoying a little light jazz and one of my friends moved a little closer and asked me the question; "Do you think Greeks are lazy?" Apart from taking me away from the jazz, the debate took many a twisted form, as it's not a simple question to answer, but was answered according to the debate.
However, as often do, I sit and ponder the connections that many can cause an affect. So today, some two days later I have realized some additional elements that can continue that extended debate. It is not about whether Greeks are lazy, its whether people are becoming more lazy. Also, to define what the term (in this debate) actually has value in meaning. One could use the word apathy, lethargy, pedestrian, slow, unenthusiastic, and a myriad of other such synonyms, but basically before this, we should look at the other connected values.
One of the connected aspects that popped into my head this morning was a strange connection with cats and Margaret Thatcher. I was just leaving high school, when the modern British tyrant entered power and took away the decent standards of all working man, to create the nuclear family, Quango and privatized lifestyle. It was done in a belief that it will make Britain great again. Well, maybe the greedy power and money mongers in the high office blocks feel that she achieved something, but in reality, it created a decay.
Watching informative documentaries, such as Zeitgeist, show that there is a great corruption toward the subject of money. Not only is the principle of it's value a mere myth, but it has also now become a misguided religion. People started to have less money, as the great socialist values of free education and free health were being squeezed by people who wanted to make a fast buck. And that is the seed to this debate. Laziness is not about apathy, its about a faster lifestyle.
Thatcher gave the idea that a closer nuclear family would help draw the great family value structure back into a crumbling social arena. This maybe true, but it was a mask to make a feeling that there was nothing wrong in having a family living for extended periods under the same roof. And now, today, I hear that it is near impossible for people to kick their fledglings out of the nest, because of unemployment, economic constraints, etc. This seems ironic as the principles of animal nature is to reproduce; if natural resources are scarce then reduce the reproductive process until a time when life can sustain this population growth.
Man has taken this out of the mix. There is a different order to having children, than the simple natural one. Family is important! And very much evident here in Greece.
However, one of the issues is, that allowing an economically inviable family structure to exists means that several things take affect. Desmond Morris, and animal psychologist and anthropologist would studied cat behavior. He noted that most domestic cats that were taken as pets at the typical age of 8-10 weeks had a natural tendency to sit on their owner's chest and paw the clothing, like in a manner that they were making it a more comfortable place to sleep. However, what was discovered was that these creatures, because they were never "kick-out" of their parental domain, saw the new surrogate parent as just that. And that this movement was an attempt to find milk. This process and behavior carries on through their entire life. Mainly because psychologically they never grow up; in the sense of being independent.
This is what nuclear families do. The nature of having children stay inside their parental homes for extended periods of their life denies them the psychological necessity to mature. Their maintain a reliance on the older generation and therefore never see a great deal of need to be responsible for anything. Being a parent I see the blanketed affect with my own off-spring, and this is one of the cruxes with the Greek method of family. It can be attributed to economics, history and whatever source gives reason to it, but psychologically it doesn't help the individual nor the society.
Darwin determined that it is the strongest that survive.
So, back to being lazy. Culture and society evolve like anything else. It can be determined by real or man-made influences, but wholly it is a determinant that should in theory improve the evolutionary track. Technology has been around for over two hundred years; whether mechanical or electronic. The nature of the affect of these evolutions has created major values in social behavior. I don't want to go too much into it, as a colleague of mine and I are trying to set up a theory to write a book on the subject. But, standards in production drop. So, standards in people's attitude could also drop. People don't want to put a great deal of effort into something, to get little return. There are very few people who still hold dear the values of craftsmanship. Less so people who do work oriented on being a member of a larger corporation. After all, why break your back to make the same amount of money, just doing enough, and still not seeing any of the profits the great corporations gather from the populous.
This apathy to be concerned about community value is also transgressed into family life. Parents work longer hours, just to make money to survive, as they have extended families to pay for, and then the role of parents is lost because they are tired and have no time. So the off-spring unable to think independently due to location see no reason to do good, as they don't think independently. A simple example of this (and I hope the person concerned doesn't mind me using it) happened a day ago in one of my lessons. A student comes late into my class and sits, but doesn't give an apology for being late and further into the discussion states he is the best. On asking where is the evidence of him being the best, he had nothing to show or say.
It does seem like modern society is based or becoming more reliant on the notion of trying to achieve the most return in any given situation, by doing the least effort. If this is the definition of laziness, then maybe there are many that can be given this title. To be great at something is determined by the effort to achieve that status. Most modern values don't give many the opportunity to be great. Modern society promotes the laziness of push-button lifestyles as an answer to getting something achieved with ease. I see it all the time in this creative field. And I could stream off a list of incidents where people do the next worst thing. Pass the issue onto someone else to solve, simply because they didn't want to spend the time in trying to solve the problem. Independence is a solution and not a problem. When social teaching makes it the later, this is when the structure of society changes in such a way that this determination of "laziness" becomes appropriate.
People are not lazy in their bones. Garbage men don't leave garbage lying on the streets because they are lazy, it's because their work situation manufacturers the laziness through economic rationale, time constraints, etc. And the list could go on, I only use that example as I leave my building every morning and wonder how can someone empty the garbage bin and leave parts on the street and not feel that this is an issue. I guess the simple answer, in this climate, is "they don't give a fuck". They have a job that pays, just enough, to get the bills paid and they are not recognized for doing a great job, so why bother.
Society is obviously evolving, but to say 'laziness' is an inbuilt trait of a nation would be wrong. And I think again, the definition of 'laziness' has so many variables that you cannot tar people with the same brush. If I had to be judgmental to an extreme, I would say that the youth is a little more lazy than their previous generation. Again, this may not be their fault, as they were born into the values that can assist in this lifestyle, but recognition of greatness is made clearer when those that have a chance (no matter how small) and do nothing, promote those that are willing to try.
The jazz was nice too. :-)