If you ask a stranger “who are you?” several times in a row you're likely to notice a strange pattern. Try it sometime. Ask someone “Who are you,” and take note of where they find their answers. For example, who are you?
“I’m John Doe.”
“No, that’s just the name your parents hung on you. Who are you?”
“I’m a design engineer for an aircraft company.”
“No, that’s how you earn your money. Who are you?”
“I’m an American.”
“No, that’s the nation you live in. Who are you?”
“I’m a Conservative Christian Republican!”
“Sorry, but those are all political groups supporting your vision of society. Who are you?”
“I’m me!”
“Of course you are, but who is that?”
The length of the list will vary, person to person, but the majority will offer quite a list before they’ll offer something defined from within their own self, something they created of their own thought. If you watch their eyes you’ll likely see them get angrier with each repetition of the question, and a quick hot anger at that.
What is provoking their anger? The usual reason for anger of course, which is fear of one form or another. They're frightened of the nakedness you're compelling on them. Their anger is in response to being stripped of the symbols they've always used to define their self within the context of their society, and even more critically in the context of defining their self… to themselves. As each component of their self definition shifts domains from being part of their self to being part of their social environment they feel the foundations of their identity becoming weaker and more vulnerable, less complete, less secure... of course they’ll be angry.
Consider the more subtle implications of what you’ve just seen. You asking such a question is perhaps a bit rude, but still essentially harmless, and yet you frightened them. In point of fact you are most likely totally powerless within their life, have no potential to do them any harm at all, and yet you still frightened them into anger, a deep anger. Why? What fear has such a secret grip on them?
What they fear is an entity who does have power in their life asking that question. Consider what might happen if that entity not only asked that question but demanded a correct answer? What if the consequence of a wrong answer meant being denied the right to continue to claim that part of their self identity? I'll assert to you that is exactly what they fear, even though they don't recognize their fear for what it is.
I will assert to you that each and any element of society John or Jane Doe uses as any portion of their self definition is in fact a collective entity, a discrete and separate entity whose life is hosted on a set of individuals defined by a common thought or activity, some common element of belief in their lives. Should such an entity as that ask them a such question it could have impact on their life, for they are dependent on that collective for a portion of the definition used in the cause of self definition, the critical ability to recognize the self from among the multitude in the perspectives mandated by abstract intelligence.
Each of the individuals included in such a group who incorporates some collective definition (grammatically expressed as “we”) as a part of their own self definition (grammatically expressed as “I”) is in fact a node within that collective entity participating in a symbiotic relationship where the collective provides a critical component of self definition to the individual, the individual in return providing continuance and cohesion to the collective in the form of compliance and loyalty to the common definition in preference to the other collectives offering common value. Just as the lives of the collective entities are hosted on many individuals any given individual will host several if not many such collective entities in their self definition, an interwoven structure of balance and compromise between the components defining the personalities of both individual and collective.
To understand the human dynamic in full is to integrate an understanding of the structures and interactions of these collective entities in parallel with an understanding of the individuals, for while they are totally interlinked and interdependent they are in fact each a unique life form struggling for survival within their respective environments.
In that the collective entities are derived from, and composed of, individual humans many of their life functions are in fact analogous with each other, for both must meet the same three primal demands of life. Since both are living entities both must procure sustenance, both must provide security, and both must arrange for procreation since both are mortal life forms that suffer attrition to biology. There are many comparisons between the individual human and the collective entities created by the humans' answer to the challenges of hosting both imagination and an abstract intelligence.
In point of fact they are constantly trading with each other, borrowing or bartering to acquire the resources required for their respective survival. Even a short contemplation of the thought will give a bewildering surplus of events to stand as examples. In fact, even a short examination of the modern world can be confusing to the point of traumatic for the rate of exchange between the two life forms has been accelerating exponentially for approximately the last quarter of a century, which will be the focus in Chapter Four of this series, "Awakenings in Utero…"
…to be continued…
for convenience all essays in this series are collected on the page titled
"The Third Reality of Man"
i could easily be wrong, 'nos, but you seem to be giving the various collectives more coherence than most of them, [at least], deserve.
ReplyDeletethe ones defined as 'movements', like for instance, the Tea Party, might be defined as having a few identifiable goals. most would be more in the form of relatively common memes, adopted in ways as various as the individuals who adopt them naturally vary.
some movements, because of the strong 'anti' feelings they might engender are spread surreptitiously via various memes, ideas or "dog whistles" which attach to previously held subconscious inclinations - racism, dominionism.
the personal questions you begin with would not frighten the small percentage of us who have made it a habit to question everyone's motivations, including our own.
most collectives would be, i surmise, the ones we inherit from our families and communities.
the commonalities might be simply ways of viewing certain aspects of life and ways of reacting to situations we might encounter.
so far, i've been wandering around seeking the point i want to make here. i guess it might be: collectives, for the most part, would tend to be made up of people who don't realize they're in a collective, [number one]. number two would be, the members might also be people who have not established any will to be in the collective,
because they live via the herd mentality, not via much free will.
one final point: it's probably near to impossible for even the most thoughtful person to realize all the collectives they might be identified with.
:) pip