Society’s Denouncement, and Submission of the Individual

I’ve observed, through out the few years of my life, that our society is slowly, but surely, degrading in terms of intellectual capabilities, individuality, and otherwise virtuous traits. This is due to an array of manifest and latent functions brought about by sociologically perpetuated ideals, phrases, and norms. This short piece, despite it’s long title, will attempt to point out a few instances; and, hopefully, further allow the reader to be more attuned to others that may not have been so obvious in the past.

Let us take, for a first example, the commonly used phrase: “Don’t get smart with me.” As we know, it is considered appropriate for, say, a teacher to tell this to a student when said student makes a witty, “mouthy” comment. Has anyone ever stopped to think about what that command actually says? Is it not blatantly obvious, most especially considering that a smaller child could take this more literally, that it is a discouraging from getting smart with a figure of authority? It does, I admit, seem like a harmless chastising, but that is the main problem. When did it, in a society that (apparently) values education, become sensible and wholeheartedly acceptable to blatantly tell someone – especially a child – to not be smart?

Yet how can such a small misdemeanor of language, and traditional phraseology be so harmful?

I bring you now to example number two: the concept of one’s character. I believe it reasonable to say that one’s character can be shortly grouped up to one’s moral, personal, mental, and ethical qualities. Most certainly many have heard the phrase, “It builds character.” – yet, what is this saying usually spoken for? Surely not, say, sitting in school and studying, or engaging in a liked, constructive activity. It is said after someone engages in an act that serves to depersonalize an individual. The Army builds character. Slaving monotonously at an unliked job builds character. While the former’s purpose is to remove the individual, and replace the concept with a sense similar to that of an organic society (every person is nothing, but each works for the whole, as the whole, and that is their only purpose). It does not condone free thought, nor does it advocate anything but submission. The latter does naught but slowly rot the mind, as it forces itself to partake in a redundant tediousness that is constantly disliked until it simply collapses under the weight, nullified. Why else would it be that those working in a job they dislike for years, upon years, upon years – turn out to seem as empty shells of their former selves? (This is not the case for all, of course, but a broad generalization.)

Alas, do not think that I see anything inherently wrong with, say, the Army, or a bad job, or anything of the like. But, taking the explanation I’ve just given to you, what do you think the effect is when people (mainly, again, children) are told that these things serve to build character. What becomes of the true, individual character?

A concept closely related with the previous is that of the work ethic. We know, via various examples, and perhaps personal experience, that hard work serves for the better good of one’s status. If a person wishes to become a biologist, hard work towards the position will eventually lead them to their goal. There is, as we know, nothing wrong with this. What is the difference, though, between subjecting one’s self to unnecessary labor, and a good work ethic? Between laziness, and not wanting to subject one’s self to unnecessary labor? Do you see an intrinsic difference in these? If someone does not wish to do some sort of work, because it will not assist them in reaching their goal, it seems to serve no practical purpose, and, though it would be a nice thing to do, isn’t necessary, is that someone lazy? (Remember to emphasize the difference between the virtues of generosity and diligence – and the difference between their counterpart vices.)

These examples serve as links to a chain that bind a person. Although one, in itself, may be relatively harmless, when connected they can restrict with intense power.

The next, selfishness, is commonly said, and taught to be a vice – while selflessness is a virtue. I do not think, assuming you now know the nature of this piece of writing, that the issues with the words selfishness and selflessness carrying the connotation they do need to be explained in depth, but, they shall be. One can infer the meaning of the word selflessness from it’s linguistic anatomy. Self, no doubt referring to one’s self, less – signifying the lack of this self, and ness – which serves only to turn selfless into a noun. We will focus on the first two. When does disregard of ones self become a grand virtue? Why does humility, in terms synonymous with selflessness, have a moral right to it? The individual person, the workings of said person, the potential, and power of thought should be praised, and the self should be something seen as a factor of development – not a detriment to it. Selfishness is but the opposite of selfless, and, again, why should it be a vice? If I am concerned with expanding my own thought, or if I am concerned with developing my self to standards I consider virtuous; who is anyone to tell me I’m wrong?

Now, again, do not misinterpret my writing. I do not, at all, think that selfishness should be a virtue, and selflessness a vice. That would be the opposite (and just as wrong) extreme. These words should be nothing but words, without such a powerful connotation of good or bad. Selfishness, in some cases, is reasonably right, while selflessness, in some cases, is reasonably wrong – and vise versa. To claim that one is naturally bad, and one naturally good only further shows, in combination with these and many other examples, how our society is discouraging one’s self, and one’s individuality, and encouraging submission to authority, and traits that more easily allow this submission.