Modern individualism and aloneness and freedom-less
Modernity pledged to expunge the shackles of authoritarianism. Man was now free of tyrannical oppression. He could make a name for himself. The market economy promised a brighter future. Man was now free to mark his destiny. Oscillation between classes was possible. The poor could become rich with sufficient effort. Anything is possible. While there is a limitation in one’s adherence to the national citizenry, operating internationally exceeds the patriotic particularism. Man is further isolated by the alienated fulcrum. He is no longer tied down to his countrymen. He is a member of a specific society but his relation does not entail the neighbourhood barbecues. Man finds friends but it is more a like-minded bunch than a community. It is not for the betterment of the nation. There is a self interest that encloses the loneliness. It lacks a measure of patriotic zeal.
Medieval society offered less freedom but provided community. Deep ties to others unnoticed in contemporary society. As Fromm points out, there is a misnomer about medieval society. People were part of a community. The church strengthened that bond (though ironically a Jewish author optimising christian society despite Jewish polemics). A citizen was placed in a system that protected and harboured him. He was never alone. He was linked to a package no matter the cause. Both religiously and politically. His efforts directly affected the structure’s efficacy. Within this comforting model, he was a member of a community. A dignified identity marking the self as formidable. He had his family backing him. Unlike modern groups, this was not an autonomous decision but a predetermined art. While to the modern mind autonomy is lacking, there is a clear tranquility to one’s fate. One is born into a system and that system cares for them. The inefficient social programs were sufficient. They were the backbone of the society. It was automatic and mechanically fluid.
As a Jew, there is similarity to the medieval ideology. A Jew is born and bread. He is compelled to adhere to a heteronomous lifestyle. One lacking freedom and mobility. This identity though fated is deteriorating today. According to the law, fate cannot be usurped but modern individualism enables unilateral desertion. The medieval coercion has elapsed. The haskalah movement was the individualistic abandonment due to minute rabbinic authority. The enlightenment universalised the Renaissance’s vision. Anyone could make it. Leave the shackles of the fated life. There are some predetermined factors but with enough attempts and an undeniable drive success was inevitable. A call for excess expression. The self was capable of material grandeur if not for the systematic suppression. A manifest destiny type with hope for gold. The pioneer needed to step outside the grid and forge a new path. Renaissance Italy did just that. With the newfound freedom, no longer was sovereign oppression a reality. Each was free to act on their own.
The farce in the meta-narrative was the monopolistic greed. While freedom was generated for the individual, his choices were limited. The corporate takeover left little freedom in the wake of its conquest. Individuals were free in the chaotic wilderness fending for themselves. The sovereign had abandoned his reign. Individuals could pick up the pieces. Finally getting a slice of the bigger picture. The versatility of capitalist identity does enable a variety of possibilities. Even with certain roads blocked off, making it big elsewhere is possible. Society in its market capital designates the needs of the nation. In privatised sectors one can charge whatever fee they wish. One must build a reputation to which they are considered by clients. Everyone has the access to acquire such a portfolio but it comes down to one’s excellence. One’s grades and success through medical school and residency promises him an opportunity to climb the ladder. Rung by rung ascending to a respectable location. Everyone has to go through this order. It is one’s abilities that forge one’s destined fortune. Even Ford’s monopoly was due to his genius. Create and cultivate and success is definite.
There are a few exceptions. Influencers on social media are the new model of rags to riches. While we are aware of the success stories we are ignorant of the failures. This is the most individualistic entrepreneurial attempt to make millions. Authorship is still an option but this illustrative interactive expression is more financially viable. One of the most talented yostubers, Mr. Beast even shows us giving money to small yostubers. His younger brother’s channel failed because it was identical. Success only comes from originality, creativity and continuity. This is not easy nor simple. A few success while most fail. The same goes for every profession. It is not automatic and passion takes the backseat to capability. There are limited spots competing for a small sample. Society transforms into a grudge match for coming on top. Only the top companies are noteworthy and if materialism is a priority, then without is failure and depressive nihilism. Athletes who narrowly focus on professional sports as the one shot at escaping the shackles of poverty only proves the point. The inability to surpass this excess mentality.
People slave away at their jobs to confirm a certain status. Fame has muddled the needs of a society. If individualism is the core, then superiority is boasted by accomplishments. It is a long way to the top but a worthwhile effort to the materialistic seeker. The individual validates himself by his achievements. By his material and things. Wearing a suit and a gold watch used to mean put together but now it means status. It means you are in a specific social structure. I heard once that Blacks wear the bling and drive Porsches to feel rich. Wealth is no longer a sign of health but of exclusivity. The goal is to make enough to lavishly live. Employees work ten hour shifts in order for one day in their tender age to rejoice in a five star hotel. The Mexican fisherman parable illustrates this beautifully. The fisherman catches one fish and then spends the rest of the day with his family and friends. The American investor prods him to invest in trading up a few fish for boats and then finally selling it for millions. Upon retiring he can spend time with his family and friends. The attitude differs in the fisherman’s awareness of his presence and joy while the investor awaits his luxury to enjoy. While the investor (diverting ever so slightly from the story) will have the money one day to travel and enjoy delicacies that the Mexican cannot, the latter’s materialistic mind forgets the familial identity through the years.
Some people are sufficiently rich to relish in the opportunities that others do not have. There will always be such people. Yet should that be a goal? It is not even obvious socio-economic issues. The idea that everyone can make millions does not mean that everyone will. Meaning possibility nowhere meets plausibility. A child from the projects in theory can make it big but the lack of opportunities prevents him from reaching that stepping stone. There are those rag to riches stories but internalise all the variables: their surroundings and environmental influence. A poor lad in a struggling town with supportive and brilliant parenting can cultivate a winner. There are few bad luck individuals but the focus on the materialistic exercise only emboldens the pressure. Anyone can do it, if they try. This optimism is necessary narcissistic. The losers are screwed especially those doomed from the start. A negative attitude will not help anyone but false hope is dangerous as the abyss is way deeper than the ascent. Hell is worse than Heaven. There are winners and losers. For every victor there is a defeat. It is a perpetuated dialectic. If someone’s content is gaining more traction, the other is not. If one is working for an employee, he is not making the same profit. There is a gap in potentiality polarising societal cohesion.
If the goal is to buy a private jet and other luxurious objects then most of society will falter. It will become super competitive and aggressively ugly. Each shooting for his shot. Trying to best each other. The problem is that it’s not a rung for rung fight. It’s like the doodle jump game, if you fall, you fall all the way to the beginning. It is not descending a smudge but an entire fortune. Consequences can be grave but if the trophy is the motto of society, then screw everyone else. Games are competitive but they’re entertainment. Do the best you can but be aware of your actions. In this pecking order, monetary attainment is the social hierarchy. We still have not exited the classist paradigm. The same individualistic liberty created a professional rivalry. There is no foundational setback to aid. The isolationism is its own animal. The us-them is now i-you. There is no team just a round robin king of the court tennis match. Yet the king is using a mechanical racket while the challenger is using a broken wooden racket. The individual can autonomously choose to play but his inferior background puts him at a disadvantage. Not impossible but highly difficult. Capitalism must recognise the inherent struggles in the individualistic model. Not everyone begins at the same mark. Biases and leverages priorities others.
Inequality only furthers resentment. In a society where the fortunate succeed they feel they are pulling too much weight. The recent debate over raising wealth tax has been overtly nasty. Paying a fair share for wealth accumulated as the self made man. Yet a rich kid who inherits his father’s fortune did nothing to demonstrate his self made-ness. Such a credit system is instituted in China and not certain its a worthy cause in democratic countries but recognition of connections that others do not have. Privileges afforded place one on a special level. These privileges are part of a social order. While there is little communitarianism, there is an invisible relational identity. The connective tissue to attain positions by relationships is not to be confused by a modern angelic communal identity. Helping out friends is executed on an individual level. It is not baked into the system. Those committing this deed are acting selflessly. It is doing favours not a community get-together or a cohesive program. The individual is tied to an individual not a larger community.
Are modern religious organisations the solution? Capitalism with autonomous communities? A capitalist community is a competitive but charitable one. Postmodernism has gradually revived communal allegiance. Though forming in political units, tribal tendencies are emerging. An individual with his liberties yet able to identify with a group. For all the great innovations, it is misconstrued that capitalism is the tool to this necessity. This meta-narrative needs to be debunked. Innovation in capitalism only occurs in profitable situations. Nevertheless modern technology is indebted to capitalistic zeal. Still human drive for growth and de-monopolisation may produce the same results. Thereby the group factor becomes ever apparent in the we over the us. The group is not in the boxing ring but in a sparring match. It is a communal goal of mutuality. The goal is for collective enhancement as an intent not a consequence. Not at the heels of some rich investor or prodigy inventor. Society is a team effort not an adversarial art. Society is a holistic being identical through and through. It is no two faced Jekyll and Hyde.
No comments:
Post a Comment