Today, I’m thinking about independence, inspired by Dereck the coconut vendor, Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford and Down to Brass Tacks.
“What does independence mean?”
Normally, I would define independence as not having to depend on others. Dereck approaches it from another angle. According to Dereck, independence means that you can depend on yourself. A subtle difference but meaningful.
Just because I can depend on myself does not mean I do not depend on others. When I think about it, there is nothing or no one who does not have to depend on someone or something. I can find no examples of absolute independence. Interdependence seems to be a universal law.
The wise coconut vendor’s definition of independence takes the emphasis off whether I need others to do for me and places it on what I am capable of doing for myself. I am independent to the degree that I can reliably contribute to my own upkeep.
Even though this may seem obvious think about how many times we talk about the “self-made” man or woman who “did it on their own.” Or how often we feel ashamed to ask for help.
The question is not whether you are independent, but how independent are you? When we say that so and so is a very independent person, we mean that they are constantly on the alert for ways to reduce their dependence on things they cannot control; externals. Either that or they are always seeking to increase their influence and control over externals.
We admire those kinds of people. Increasing our independence is what we’ve all been trying to do from the day we were born. “I can do it myself,” is the stubborn plea of every child.” “Mommy, I did it,” is their victory cry. A child is an independence seeking machine. He will try and cry and try again. It usually takes a well-meaning adult to eventually convince him of what he is not capable of doing.
How independent do you want to be?
I ask myself: “Where in my life have I stagnated because I settled into the role of a dependent?” Where in my life is there potential for increased independence?” It would feel good to be able to depend on myself as much as possible.
Some people are so serious about independence they will pursue it at the expense of material comfort and social bonds. For most of us, the freedom of a shanty in the hills is not worth what we would have to give up. We are quite willing to hand over a bit of our fate.
This is easier. With greater independence usually comes greater responsibility and pressure. We weigh the pros and cons; freedom versus what we would have to risk to earn it. This is the choice our ancestors had to make during slavery; a life enslaved versus the risk of death on the run.
None of us today can say for sure which was the better choice. To run may have meant leaving children or a wife at the mercy of the slave master. To stay may have been as sure a death sentence as running.
Our level of independence is a negotiated choice. I hold this in mind when I consider recent statements by Sir Lloyd Sandiford and journalist David Ellis.
Sir Lloyd is asking how Barbados becoming a republic would improve our situation. He is not prepared to support the move until someone can give him evidence of its benefits.
On a recent edition of Down to Brass Tacks moderator and journalist Ellis was questioned by fellow moderator Corey Lane about the lack of serious independent journalism in the Caribbean. Lane was speaking in relation to our perceived overdependence on Western media for news. This issue was a big talking point recently. Critics accused large media corporations of heavily covering the bombings in France while under-reporting similar occurrences in Africa and the Middle East. Ellis cited a lack of resources as the main reason.
Sir Lloyd and Ellis have always struck me as practical and reasonable men. Theirs’ are practical and reasonable positions. It’s easy to get emotional and idealistic from the outside. Sometimes reality makes continued dependence the practical and reasonable choice.
Maybe there are concrete benefits that we enjoy from having the Queen as head of state that we would suffer greatly without. Maybe depending on Western media to give us their view of the world is necessary because we do not have the means to go out there and get our own. Sometimes the most practical and reasonable position was for the slave to stay on the plantation.
I wonder, though, how often the decision to stay on the plantation was a result of psychological comfort with being a slave. How often do we too readily accept a position of dependence when greater independence may be possible? The people we admire as independent have enough distaste for dependence and belief in themselves to try it on their own at great risk.
There would have been enslaved Africans who refused to join Bussa’s rebellion because it was impractical and unreasonable. They would have been right. The rebellion did not directly achieve its goal. Would you go back and tell Bussa not to bother?
According to Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Are we too reasonable? Sometimes dependence is more of a psychological issue than a practical one. It can be hard to tell the difference.
Adrian Green is a creative communications Specialist email Adriangreen14@gmail.com
