As a collective species, humanity has reached a critical point in history whereby we find ourselves staring directly into a symbolic mirror. Many, in doing so, cover the mirror and ignore the reality. Others succumb to the dire truth and allow themselves to surrender, sometimes falling victim by their own hands. While even fewer look beyond the mirror to look upon the approaching dawn. We have each been granted an unalienable right to choose for oneself the best recourse throughout life. However, why is it that a majority of individuals always end up making characteristically the same decisions as everybody else? With so many people in the world, one would figure there would be a wide range of ideas expressing new forms of thoughts and individual action. This is simply not the case. In this modern technological era there are so many vehicles for people to express their personal opinions, thoughts, views, feelings, etc. But the reality remains the same; a strong majority of the population reflects the same institutionalized ideas as everybody else. The established ideological range is minimal at best and yet no real solutions or answers have been proposed. Sociological conditions have slowly depleted on an individual conscious level; even while as the educational standard rises, the true progressive movements within society become repressed. In recent times many realized the severity of our current sociological condition, many demanded change, and however, even with this “change” the standards remained exactly the same. Again approaching these questions one must ask, is our current state due to a few underlying individuals that prevent true change? Or is it a uniformly systemic problem?
Dissecting the Individual
Many institutionalized factors play vital roles when it comes to analyzing the individual perspective within a sociological context. Such institutional factors range from basic education to globalized media and each greatly affect the individual consciousness. Foremost, the role of the individual must be taken apart on a psychological level before determining the sociological consequences, as both are interrelated. More specifically, on a psychoanalytical level, examples may be used to analyze behavioral root problems within individuals that act through a centralized collective.
Social cohesion is largely determined by a reciprocal interrelationship between individuals. A basic example would be adhering to the large majority which in turn brings about a warranted sociological response that rewards the individual. This is known as operant conditioning, however on a psychosocial scale. When an individual acts against the ruling majority, an unpleasant experience may result. These psychological reinforcements are both direct and indirect forms of social conditioning. While analyzing the psychological perspective the question then arises; where does the exact role of the individual lie if the group consciousness sets the standard? Usually the first reaction is to blame others for one’s own actions, for example, “well, if they do it, I can do it too.” Such responses are logical fallacies and are critical for understanding the reasoning behind individual actions. The blatant disregard for logical reasoning has become even more apparent in various media outlets including sensationalist reporting and talk shows. However, as the case may be, not all individuals follow the majority consensus or status quo.
Specific fallacious arguments, as previously mentioned, are but reactions to situations or questioning where an individual refuses to fully accept the reality. In other situations when confronted with the reality in which an individual is unable to cope, the unconscious reacts instantly through various means, primarily defense mechanisms. Many are familiar with these defense mechanisms such as denial, repression, and isolation, but there are many more apparent levels of these responses within certain individuals. Even the very use of certain words and their meanings may be used to cover up inner conflicted ideas and thought-processes. What is also known as psychosemantics puts forth the notion of the individual word constructs or meanings are based purely on the imagination of each individual. The very associations of each word within the mind play a vital role in our own cognitive development and become powerful. Likewise, the theory of cognitive dissonance shows that individuals holding two contradictory ideas try everything in their power to rationalize the irrational and become uncomfortable or even hostile when the ego comes under attack.
Lack of True Individuality
Having dissected the basic psychological elements behind individualism, one must now relate it to the social construct as a whole. First, one must begin with the ideological perspectives that influence the specific individual. The romanticized notion of rugged individualism is an American ideology holding that each individual has the power to achieve according to their own accord. This becomes easily problematic seeing as this entitles individuals to put self-interests before actual needs. It focuses on the “me” aspect and not the “us”, as with the case of many post-Darwinistic ideologies. “Rugged individualism also gives us the illusion that we make our own decisions without being significantly influenced by ideology of any sort when, in fact, we’re all influenced by various ideologies all the time, whether we realize it or not (Tyson p. 60)” The logical progression of this ideology leads to informal conditions such as apathetical perspectives and loss of true subjectivity. Furthermore, the implications of individual development become limited to the scope of what one only sees fit (e.i. not taking other perspectives into account).
This false idea of ‘individuality’ becomes a venerable point whereby marketing strategy can easily inflict its poison. It literally becomes a race to see who can capitalize on individual freedoms and on the very essence of individuality itself. The best examples of this are both direct and indirect forms of social integration marketing. There being so many different cultural backgrounds, nationalities, beliefs, etc, there needed to be a specific appeal that one could easily be able to be categorized or assimilated into. Direct forms of social integration marketing would consist of various stores, brands, trademarks, and styles. General examples of direct forms would be when a person says “I only like wearing Nike shoes” or “I dress Goth and buy my clothes at Hot Topic.” Indirect forms of this integration are not so open regarding individual interests. Examples may include hobbies, music, movies, and books. Network sites such as Facebook and Myspace rely heavily on such marketing techniques to make money. So, as an example, when someone creates a Facebook account all their interests get plugged into a system that other companies try to then sell certain products based on matched interests. In other words, even at the smallest level you become categorized and limited based on personal tastes and interests.
This categorization is also further perpetuated not so much by marketing groups alone, but also by our peers. The best example to illustrate this is when somebody refuses to listen to another person based on their political affiliation alone (e.g., “what does Billy know, he’s a Democrat” or even “that guy has a Che Guevara shirt on, why should I listen to what he has to say?” ). On various levels from obvious political affiliations to smaller interests such as favorite books might put you under a general classification among various peer groups. This may be the reason why so many people are scared to make too much information public and the might lose their reputations (among other professionals) or might not get hired by that certain company (based on recreational interests or activities). Seeking attention, many do not care as to what limits they have to go to in order to expose their individual lifestyles. These individuals gain much popularity among many peers, groups, and networks. And rather than becoming well integrated, the exact opposite takes place; they become completely isolated.
Isolation and Recovery
Sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) once asked the question “how do societies create and sustain social solidarity by attracting people to the pleasures of group life and by controlling them to conform with societal ways of acting, thinking, and feeling?” What he concluded was that it was not the individuals who created society, but rather, society was what created individuals. Societal “ways of acting, thinking, and feeling…are not only external to the individual, but are, moreover, endowed with coercive power, by virtue of which they impose themselves upon him, independent of his individual will (Kivisto pp. 76-7).” The overall thought was that both regulation and integration brought together the different individuals into a society in order to strive for some collective goal and sustaining various interests or ideas among the people (e.g. much like the collective idea of democracy manifested in the United States). But what happens when the real ideas of regulation and integration become weak or nonfunctional? The result is egoism and sometimes egoistic suicide. As the collective achievements have declined, the society becomes fractured and the people take on highly individualistic lives. The intense cohesion of previous social activities that once manifested individual energetic states from either gatherings, festivals, ceremonies, projects or even social hangouts is no more. As a result egoistic suicide takes place, whereby so much individualism is created that there is no more social integration (which minimized the ego). This is marked by signs of depression within the individual, because he/she feels that everything is meaningless because all that they see is a world of individuals that does not serve a collective humanistic purpose.
In the age of technological advancements we too have receded from group life, and have become excessively individualist and withdrawn from actual meaningful human interactions. In such a society self-interest become the new law and many, realizing this, see no point to their existence and commit egoistic suicide. Further analysis to the current problem adds a new dimension of individuality in what Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) called the one-dimensional man. Within a one-dimensional society, according to Marcuse, the dialectical relationships among people and the systemic structures within a society would breakdown in such a way that the structures would control the individuals within society. Individuals within this society will lose the ability to be creative and lose involvement within the actual social structure itself. Over time true freedom and creativity will diminish into absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the individual within this society will not be able to think critically and negatively regarding the very structures that control oppress them. To Marcuse technological advancements were an unavoidable reality, but the underlying motive of capitalism behind this technology was what would enslave and interlock the mind of the masses. Even today the enjoyable technological advancements such as televisions, video games, and internet would make repression a pleasant experience, thus all ‘intellectual’(or ‘creative’) reasoning will be diminished to only one perspective; that of the capitalist institution which controls these technologies (Ritzer pp. 107-8).
Because shopping is the favorite leisure activity of Americans, they spend many long hours after work and on weekends at the shopping mall. Vacation is likely to be spent consuming services and goods in places like a Las Vegas casino-hotel, a cruise ship, or Disney World. (Ritzer p. 106)
In basic essence we’ve become so desensitized that we fail to understand exactly how far we’ve become as slaves to various direct and indirect forms of technology. Many individuals understand the implications but most try to justify their irrational behaviors. Within the current system real change becomes very impossible. One may see the injustices, or the sleeping masses cloaked within the normal confines of reality, however, due the complete separation of individuals to one another, change can never take place. Because our current technologically advanced society has isolated every individual and has empowered each one with a false sense of freewill, reasoning, and creativity, they become reluctant to strive toward any true social progression to better themselves or the rest of the world. The real solution is to break away from these technological demons that preoccupy us from actual progression. Individuals must begin to completely shift their focus on ideas, feelings, and thoughts that are common within all people around the world and not on the things that make us different. When approached with the question, “who are you?” most will reply with specific interests, for example favorite movies and music. However, real individualism transcends these material and superficial aspects of our conscious mind and is not limited to one’s mere surroundings. True individual essence lies within unrestrained charitable work, helping others, making peace, and bringing hope to those in need. Such empathetic acts transcend even words and thoughts. Many individuals who have come to this understanding know themselves better than most, and when asked who they are, they humbly reply “I don’t know… I just do what I need to do.”
Bibliography:
Kivisto, Peter Illiminating Social Life; Fourth Edition
Ritzer, George Contemporary Sociological Theory and its Classical Roots; Second Edition
Tyson, Lois Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide; Second Edition