After sharing my thoughts on Andrew O Hagan I feel purged to an extent. I looked him up, read what he’s been doing. Some of it is admirable. It appears that he still wouldn’t know a witticism if he walked into one like the patio door you could have sworn was open. But not everyone has quick fire wit. I wouldn’t recognise organized writing if fell asleep on it, slobbering. That’s people for you and that’s what makes it interesting.
He wrote a book about the plight of British farmers, which is something I can appreciate, since I’m writing a thesis on how Korean farmers are getting screwed. Andrew writes about victims it seems, whether farmers or the disappeared people, which probably means he’s more compassionate than I took him to be. Sitting back I wonder whether if I met him today he would be like those films you first saw as a kid and which take you in a completely different way now. I’ve changed. He’s changed. Hopefully we’re both better people than we were otherwise what’s the point of lumbago and a dodgy knee. That’s people for you and that’s what makes it interesting.
It’s got to be about people in the end. You can talk about economics till you’re blue in the face, but if it’s not used in the service of people it won’t engage me. You can talk about markets in a similar vein, but if its a case of people serving the market rather than vice versa it won’t engage me. You can talk about technology in the same way, technology has to serve people and not the other way around. Too many people talk or write about these things in a context light fashion. They say wow isn’t this neat. To which I would say how does it improve the lot of people, or indeed, does it? Put it in context.
Just the other day I was thinking about the people I’ve known and lost touch with. That’s a lot of people because I’ve moved around a lot and I’ve never been good at keeping relationships close when distance becomes a factor. Could this be why I’m blathering on about community action now, I wonder.
