Lanyardula fever

February 3, 2010 by
Filed under: Social brain 

I have been busy conducting interviews for a Radio Four mini-series, ‘God on my Mind’. One of the most interetsing , was with Bruce Hood of the Department of Experimental Psychology at Bristol University. He argues in his book ‘Supersense’ that the process of child development leaves us predisposed to supernatural beliefs. One aspect of this is how we feel emotion about inanimate objects, not because of their inherent qualities but their associations. So, for example, very few of us are willing to touch a cardigan when we are told it was once worn by Fred West, as if somehow evil has rubbed off on the garment and it is contagious.

I was reminded of my own irrational feelings towards everyday objects when I went to get a temporary pass for the BBC (soon to be followed by the real thing). It filled me with a quite undue sense of pride and achievement.

It’s not the first time this has happened. Over several years I took great pleasure in keeping my Labour Party conference passes as I passed through various stages of promotion from research assistant to head of rebuttal to head of policy and ultimately assistant general secretary. And when I left Number Ten I went to quite some lengths to hold on to my Downing Street and Parliamentary passes, not because I wanted to gain illicit entry, but because each pass carried a great symbolic weight.

Indeed, so voluminous has my collection now become that I suspect if I ever go completely dotty I will be found running naked down the South Lambeth Road wearing nothing but hundreds of brightly coloured passes and lanyards.

Getting the BBC pass involved another memorable moment. The young man in the ID office was having some difficulty printing my photograph when an internal BBC messenger came to his desk to drop off a parcel. When the messenger held out his clipboard for a signature the ID guy said ‘sorry I’m a bit busy can I sign for it later’. The messenger was walking away when he turned; ‘sorry, mate, I think I need it now’. At which point ID guy leant over and signed, an act that must have taken all of two seconds.

I always think when I say it that it’s true, but I guess the statement ’I am too busy’ is an assertion of status, a way of showing that your job is more important that the person seeking your time. Maybe ID card guy was once assistant ID card guy, someone who had no choice but to sign when asked. But now he has moved up in the world and everyone needs to know it.

‘How funny; to be so obsessed with status, to behave in such an evidently silly way’ I said to myself slightly adjusting my jacket collar to make sure any passer-by caught sight of my bright blue BBC lanyard.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , ,

Comments

11 Comments on Lanyardula fever

  1. Niall Smith on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 5:35 pm

    2. You’re in good company – i think.

    I seem to remember Jamie Lee-Curtis (aka Lady Hayden-Guest) waving her pass up in front of Andrew Neill on telly saying she wouldn’t give her pass back becuase it was the coolest thing she owned.

  2. Michael (in UK) on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 6:33 pm

    3. When I worked in London it always made me smile to see people sporting those BA Executive Club passes on briefcases and handbags – when they had no other luggage and most likely were just travelling home after a regular day in the office.

    But, no doubt I too have been guilty of gratuitous displays of status.

  3. Matthew Cain on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 8:02 pm

    4. When I lost my parliamentary pass – which I had spent 2 years working towards – I remember sneering at those who wore their pass outside the parliamentary estate as ostentatious flouters of the regulation not to wear the pass outside the parliamentary estate.

  4. grit on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 8:29 pm

    5. i was going to add something about mental constructs, but after reading your comments i will just say that last year i lost my library card. i think i win.

  5. Livy on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 9:35 pm

    6. One of the GPs who works in my local surgery wears a stethoscope around his neck every time he goes to the shops.

    That isn’t sentimental attachment to an inanimate object, that’s being a twat.

  6. mas on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 11:39 pm

    7. I guess this demonstrates those inanimate objects represent very different associations with different people.

    Using objects for status seems somehow different than associations of emotion – well in so far as the former often makes me feel how Livy describes the local doctor.

  7. Steve on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 11:47 pm

    8. This is quite a timely post as I’m quietly plotting how I’m going to try and keep my RSA lanyard after my internship ends tomorrow.

  8. Ian Leslie on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 6:19 pm

    9. This is a brilliant post.

  9. rhian on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 9:29 pm

    10. I guess its not much of a leap from lanyard (strange word) fever to wearing a crucifix, or a dog-collar or dare i say, a burkha..maybe best not go there again after the last post..
    I’m the opposite; I wear most of my adornments under my clothes. I guess if you are a priest these days or an MP you might want to keep it under your hat..
    I shall go back to Channel 4 programme about how to guarantee the sex of your future baby…about time science did something useful for us women. I wonder what you have to eat to get a girl..?

  10. Livy on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 10:48 pm

    11. Hey Rhian,

    After my recently less than stellar posting performance I suppose I should really keep my head down, mouth shut, and stop disagreeing with people. And you’re usually one of the better people who I like reading. But I’ve got to say, I’m not quite sold on your comparison with religious insignia.

    Fair enough, men are men – and men will seek pride. To some extent everybody’s got a badge to wear. If it isn’t “I’m a chief exec” or “I’m a parliamentary researcher”, it will be “My son goes to Oxford” or used car salesmen will print business cards with “Luxury Vehicle Consultant” under their names. (I sear, I’ve seen it…)

    But there’s nothing wrong with a religion with laws that say you have to grow a beard, or wear certain clothing to cover certain body parts. It’s when defiance against these laws becomes a crime against the state and not your faith that we have to start drawing lines.

    I suppose the difference is that one is a tad more mandatory (especially for children), with deep rooted cultural and historic significance. The other is vanity bordering on insecurity.

    Having a badge to wear is great, but in the grand scheme of things? You don’t have to wear it in order to know it.

    Livy

  11. oldandrew on Sat, 6th Feb 2010 8:38 am

    12. “I have been busy conducting interviews for a Radio Four mini-series, ‘God on my Mind’. One of the most interetsing , was with Bruce Hood of the Department of Experimental Psychology at Bristol University. He argues in his book ‘Supersense’ that the process of child development leaves us predisposed to supernatural beliefs.”

    This sort of stuff winds me up.

    People believe things because they seem convincing from their point of view and their experience. People who try and find genetic, environmental, psychological or neurological explanations for the beliefs of other people (never their own beliefs, which are, of course, based on pure rationality) are simply engaging in prolonged and ingenius circumstantial ad hominems.

    It is made worse by attempts to lump vastly different beliefs together. “Religion” is a loose enough term that it winds me up when people try to suggest a single cause or a small number of causes, for all religion. “Supernatural” is an even vaguer term, vague to the point where it basically refers to anything other than pure materialism.

    When the materialist tries to find causes for “belief in the supernatural” it amounts to nothing more than asking “why can’t everybody see that I’m right?” The answer, conveniently, turns out to be that other people, even some of the greatest minds in human history, were less rational and more subject to blindly following “predispositions”.

    It is also noticeable that the explanations change over time. 100 years ago supernatural beliefs would be rationally explained away with Marxist and Freudian theories. Now it’s evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology, but the jist remains the same: “modern science has explained what’s wrong with anybody who disagrees with me”.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!