We are a society of individuals, which means we are a judgmental society.
With rules, there is a simple process: do what the rules say, and you’re OK. The same is true of hierarchical, role-based societies, to a greater degree.
With individualism, all of the choice falls on the individual — but so do the consequences. This is why such societies are judgmental. Failure is not just a failure to perform a task, but a failure of character.
In a judgmental society, you can do anything you want, but the stakes are higher, so you tend not to. In fact, because other individuals are judging you, and since social interaction is voluntary you need their approval, you are going to conform that more solidly because if you lose social approval, you’re nothing.
For this reason, in individualist societies, people tend to think of how their actions will appear. This creates a state of future conformity, in which people choose their actions based on how they will look if they fail.
Some failures have retreat points. If you try to pick up a girl, and it doesn’t work, everyone understands because everyone wants the same freedom to fail gracefully.
But if you try something new, others may gang up on you because there’s opportunity there — they can raise their own social status by spotting the weaker monkey and organizing a group mockery of that person.
This is why our society becomes such a cauldron of calcified, rigid thinking. You can do anything you want, but if you fail, you look like a total idiot for not doing it the way everyone else did. You may lose your job, friends or social position in turn, because your character is being judged.
Imagine explaining to your boss why a project went south. There’s a way everyone does this, but we chose another way. The boss’s question will inevitably be: why didn’t you do it the way everyone else did? It worked for them!
Hindsight being 20/20, and retroactive enforcement being the norm because making judgments makes people feel more powerful than suspending judgment, this is a difficult place to be.
As a result, people look toward the future and plan conformity not because it’s a good idea, and not because trying new ways are bad, but because the social risk is too great.
This future conformity is worse than the conformity of totalitarian states, where everyone does the same stuff by process. There is fear of difference in individualistic states, and it drives us into a negative mindset of thinking about how things look, what the risks are, and what the norms are.
In life many things cannot be taken at face value because time and the counter-reaction of the world to those things change them to often be the opposite of how they appear. Somehow more rules means more evasion of those rules, throwing money at problems can make them more expensive, and the greater the “freedom” the greater the fear of freedom.
Future conformity is one aspect of this fear. When we have nothing to stand on but our own judgment, and are socially judged by the appearance of the results, freedom becomes slavery indeed.
43 queries. 0.948 seconds
I’ve been ready for that message. I’m an individualist but I’m in a rut and I travel a lonely path because I’m afraid others’ judgment is as merciless as mine, and it’s easier to do nothing.
cheers, there is no such thing as an individual, we are all experiencing the same mercilessness. our society of kill or be killed american liberalism combined with nihilistic “capitalism” and a touch of marxist egalitarianism, begits us a civilization of men and women who live utterly at odds with each other. for no reason other than vague posturing. we detach from our lives into this world of victimhood, where we the “movie star” are being held back by what would otherwise be our lovers and friends, our brothers in arms and so forth.
You know, I kind of really needed to hear this right now. It is complicated, but really fits some stuff going on for me. Yeah, our society can be kind of cruel sometimes. So much often does not make sense.
I imagine Mr. Stevens as a wise old man sharing truths that nobody really wants to hear, because to fix them requires hard work, breaking habits, and accepting a view of reality that seems uncomfortable. His task all the more difficult as legions of well-paid liars have crafted clever marketing plans to entice people pushing every possible emotional button on the human mind – all the in the hopes of trapping a few of their fellow men for profit. Why then would they want to listen to a man who points out to everyone why what they are doing is wrong and involves hard work to fix? I suspect he would get more ears (and money) by promising a sensational, amazing, secret fix to make them eternally happy and infinitely rich for the low low price of $99.95. What a strange fellow – to care more about his fellow mans health and well being than to figure out clever ways to profit off their ignorance.
He seems, perhaps, a strange fellow now, but he will not seem strange after the collapse. He exemplifies the way of the future, while still in the present.
Maybe that’s not what you meant by ‘strange’ :)
Certainly it is passing strange, the man’s sheer output!
“as legions of well-paid liars have crafted clever marketing plans to entice people pushing every possible emotional button on the human mind – all the in the hopes of trapping a few of their fellow men for profit.”
It is not as Mr. Stevens understands the situation. In his vision, the majority with the consumerist habits create the situation with this crazy demand of low quality services and goods. Smart guys making profit make no contribution to this process. Proles are in control.
“infinitely rich for the low low price of $99.95.”
One day only! Send me $95.95, and you will learn how people get rich!
(http://davidharvey.org/)
Lowest price garanteed!
Bonus: A soft drink from your fridge!
Yes, I know the secret fix for the whole humankind, hurry up!
Tomorrow will be too late!
will it make my penis larger?
What a shame, I forgot about it.
Of course, it will, though only to the time of actual use.
Exactly. Without this demand, liberated by equality, modern society would not exist as it does.
Smart guys simply fulfill the need, although they’re obviously not that smart, since the long-term consequences will be dire for everyone.
It takes the truly intelligent and gifted in leadership — an aristocracy — to implement the leadership and values-oriented thinking which is required to avoid this consequence.
“Smart guys simply fulfill the need”
Looks like these smart guys are forced to do that, and only in a most perverted way, as demanded by proles. And they have no way, no power, money, mass media, etc., to influence what is actually popular. They (and the “elites”) are poor victims, and are kind of non-participating in making trends, just a passive elements of the society. Proles pretend to be victims, while in reality only elites are. Is that what you mean?
victimhood is the modern liberal focus of identity for an individual, so in an individualist society everyones a victim, and the “vicitm” runs the show. the victim being the prole or the “person of color”
Victims depend on victimizers.
No victimizer=no victim.
Hence victimizers are really very important to the structure of society, as it now is. They’re not getting enough respect!
If everyone is a victim, and “the victim being the prole or the “person of color”, that implies elites are “persons of color”, because they are definitely not proles.
Or, you mean, elites do not belong to any society?
“It takes the truly intelligent and gifted in leadership — an aristocracy — to implement the leadership”
Where to take this aristocracy from: from proles, or from elites, or somewhere else?
Aristocracy, in this sense, are those drawn from the (tiny) ranks of the most capable. Those who can do it, versus those who can not. So, humans, you might say, without reference to class or caste.
Ferret, even after your hundreds of comments, I still have no idea of what your political view is. Can you summarize it? Where do you stand? Do you stand anywhere?
It’s simple. I am an optimizationist.
That means, I care about the optimization of the whole system in order to achieve the best performance and benefits for every and each member.
For me economy and politics should be considered together.
For the capitalist economy I would prefer the approach proposed by Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Neoclassical_economics_and_the_Chicago_School).
Also I believe in the future changes as described here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Future
For the politics I would like the rule of the competent empowered by science and technology.
I don’t believe in effectiveness of democracy, as it is aimed to benefit only a part of the society and is based on decisions made by incompetent people.
According to Aristotle, monarchy, aristocracy, and polity are true forms of constitution whereas tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy are perverted forms.
Thus a combination of the true forms in a right proportion would give a good result. And the proportion itself may be adjustable dynamically according to the recommendations of specialists as required. It may end up with 100% aristocracy or monarchy, and that would be fine, as it would be proved as the most effective for the moment.
This will work only if all people take the Quality of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index) as a criteria and a measure of success – not just money, profit, power, popularity, etc.
In this case we can get clean environment, low crime, good health, interesting life, and so on.
No violent revolutions, no fights for wealth distribution and incompetent state regulations for the economy (that only kills the economy). Just rational systematic approach.
very good piece, you changed the tone from the usual brett stevens essay, it is interesting your analysis of our civilization is always the same, kind of “spenglerian” viking energies going on here, individualism, old anglo-saxon john locke. this mercenary viking instinct for individual glory has morphed into the most masochistic schizophrenic society of atomized drones ever to walk the earth. (for me the dissonance to the “trend society” has gotten to the point where seriousness is ironic, why compete in a society of infant minds who’s only source of meaning is the infantilization of others as a crude means of victory, a taste of “the shield wall”.)
The atomization is perhaps our worst enemy. Within it, there is no sense of “values” except as personal choices, like a shopper contemplating arbitrary and unnecessary purchases.