Won't You Be My Neighbor?

From a very early age, there have been two messages that have been hammered into our brains that are supposed to shape our vision of our-Selves and our relations with Others.

1) Deep down, we are all special, unique Individuals.

2) Deep down, we are all the same—we are all just humans being.

The point of this education is two-fold. First, it is supposed to build Self-Esteem—we are all special and unique and there is no one else in the world quite like us. When others try to push their agendas on us and force us to contort ourselves in un-natural ways, we end up maiming our true-Selves causing unnecessary pain and frustration. We should only be who we want to be and everyone else be damned. The second part of the message is supposed to combat Racism and Intolerance and illustrate the “fact” that was found back in the State of Nature: we are all Equal and any sort of arrangement contradicting that is illegitimate and can be overthrown. Underneath our exterior, superficial differences, we are all just Human Beings trying to get by in this world and live some sort of life of meaning.

This contradiction has been coined as The Fundamental Tension of Modern Life. We all want to be unique, self-reliant Individuals who live with a unique purpose, which transcends the banality of everyday Bourgeois life, but there is also this pull that makes us want to be part of something bigger than our-Selves that will connect us with eternity. But how is one suppose to reconcile these two seemingly incompatible ends?

Rousseau was so worried about this contradiction that he felt the only solution was to “De-nature” Man in order to fit him into Society—the process of which he described in The Social Contract, in 1762. In order to reconcile Man to Society we must be capable of “changing Human Nature; of transforming each Individual who by himself [in the State of Nature] is a perfect and solitary whole into a part of a larger whole from which that Individual would as it were receive his life and his being; of substituting a partial and moral existence for the independent and physical existence we have all received by Nature.”

Yet, somehow today we preach these contradictory impulses to little children—completely unequipped to deal with this necessarily frustrating aspect of our Nature—then pat them on their heads and send them on their way, while never recognizing the incoherence that lies behind this instruction.

How can we be different and identical at the same time?

We have found the best way to resolve it is by just never bringing it up. Just sweep it under the carpet because exploring it can have dire consequences and the strategies that have thus far been prescribed have lead to less than desirable results. The complete abnegation and suppression of the Individual and the Rights accordant to them was played out in the atrocities of brutal Communist Regimes throughout the 20th Century; and the self-evident evil of not recognizing every Individuals inherent humanity has played throughout all of Human history.

So, whereas, once again there is a plausible end that is trying be reached by the premises of our current wisdom, our current methodology is cracking around the edges and is showing signs of decay. Romanticized, wishful thinking only gets you so far because it is necessarily based on a fallacy, which has no basis in Nature and is usually created in order to make up for what is seen as a perceived failing of our Nature.

Is Man by Nature a Solitary Being? Was Man ever an individual, singular Whole at any point in our History or can we only receive completeness in union with another/others? Maybe inner contradiction and the resultant attempts at reconciliation are the source of Man’s greatness and we are never destined for the peace and happiness promised by our Regime?

Our current wisdom says that if people follow these mutually exclusive and contradictory impulses to the max, then they will achieve inner peace and Society will live in harmony. I wouldn't hold your breathe.

Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes

The aspect of Rousseau’s critique of Liberalism that I want to focus on for this post is the phenomenon that is the primary result of this new system: The Bourgeois. This type of person has been the bane of every Philosopher and Artist—on the Left and the Right—since Rousseau first gave him a name in his work Émile in 1762.

Rousseau said that he is a result of a mistake made by Locke: “He who in the Civil order wants to preserve the primacy of the sentiments of Nature [Self-Preservation and Self-Interest] does not know what he wants.” To him, The Bourgeois is stuck in the middle of what he feels are two very respectable extremes: 1) the good, Natural Man, as found in the State of Nature; and 2) the Moral (de-natured) Citizen of the ancient Republics in Greece and Rome. He is constantly divided by his Natural Inclinations and the demands of Social Duty. The conflict between Self-love and love of Others, Inclination and Duty, Sincerity and Hypocrisy, being one-Self and being Alienated has pervaded all modern discussion of the Human Condition since Rousseau’s critique of Liberalism.


When a Bourgeois thinks of others, he only considers how the interaction is going to benefit himself; yet, when he tries to think about himself, his only conception is in comparison to others, with no inner metric of Self-worth.


Bourgeois and Middle Class can be used interchangeably, but, where as Bourgeois is always used with derision, Middle Class in America has always been thought to be a good, desirable thing to be. It is a status the poor strive for and a demographic Politicians always pander to because a majority of Americans fall within it (depending, of course, on your definition of Middle Class). In Marxist theory, The Bourgeois is despicable because they are the buffer that allows the Capitalist system to continue and perpetuate itself; for Artists they are contemptible because they are un-poetic, un-erotic, and un-heroic—and their religion is empty and mostly just for show. They have neither longings for greatness nor enthusiasm for life and merely accept the world the way it is, in a passionless reconciliation with “Reality.”

The Bourgeois can be directly related with, what Locke called, the “Industrious and Rational” Man that he required in order for his system to work. He was a new type of Man that made the Politics of Consent—as opposed to politics based on Myth—work. He consults his Reason and sees that, by incorporating with other men, he can get a lot more done and better protect himself (i.e. preserve him-Self), but only will consent to a Government that protects his Individual Rights (the Natural Rights he possesses, which predate Government and Society).

Throughout American history there have been people who have spoke out against this type of system—most notably Thoreau in his book Walden in 1854 and the Transcendentalists—but for the most part it has been accepted and has helped America to become the Industrial and Technological behemoth that it is today. The latest and most far-reaching of these Counter-Movements occurred in the 1960’s and has completely transformed the face of America. Although beginning with legitimate claims against American society and the Government—Civil Rights and opposition to the War in Vietnam among others—their solution and method for enacting their social change, I would say in the end, has done much more harm than good.

Their Philosophy was an incongruous mixture of Marxist collectivist communalism paired with a Nietzschean over-emphasis on a free-spirited Individualism. (And don’t forget the Freudian rejection of society as a repressive agent of neuroses and unhappiness, as if we could possibly return to the State of Nature after all of our History that has moved us so far away from it.) Although, both Marx and Nietzsche hated The Bourgeois, they approached the problem from completely different vantage points—the modern Left/Right dichotomy—and to think the two could be combined is completely foolish and is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

There are very legitimate claims that can be made against our Government and our Culture—and have been made by many Thinkers even before America was created—but the solutions of the Sixties have failed. And far from reforming or transforming Bourgeois Society, their ideas have instead led to the greatest opportunities for growth “The System” could have ever hoped for. The Counter-Culture has now become part and parcel of the Consumer-Culture. There is no differentiation between Bourgeois and Bohemian anymore other than the style of dress and the dichotomy has collapsed in upon itself. Denim may have replaced Khaki on our University Campuses, but those pants were still bought at a store that fully participates in every unsavory practice that our Capitalist system was built on: unsafe factories, low wages, child labor, natural degradation, marketing—the lists goes on and on.

The true result of the Sixties Philosophy came to a head in the Eighties and was personified by the Me! Me! Me! Generation and can be best described by the phrase, “Whoever dies with the most toys, wins!” When the contradiction of Community through Individuality became manifest, there was no longer anything left to stop the excesses of Capitalism because another part of Sixties Ideology was rejection of the past/attempt to kill History (at least Western History). This meant two things: 1) the Religion that made people at least stop and think about the state of their souls for two seconds had disappeared; and 2) all those great Thinkers that proposed alternatives or modifications/correctives to our System had been forgotten as well.

We are now Solitary Individuals, being kept afloat by life-boats in the middle of a vast, empty ocean, with no connection to History, no connection to our Community, no connection to our Country, and with only an abstract connection with the rest of Humanity.

“These are the times that try Men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
—Thomas Paine Crisis December 23, 1776

The Party's Over

Loss of Human Dignity? That is a pretty high price to pay. Why did Kant feel that this new system—which he ultimately agreed with—had such a high cost, especially when you think about all the great things that were gained from it: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to vote and have a say in the functioning of your Government, and a whole plethora of other Rights to protect the Individual.

To find the answer to that question we must look to the other half of the Modern American dichotomy: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (who I indicated earlier as the basis for the current crop of Liberals today).

Rousseau wrote about 60 years after Locke’s highly influential book Two Treaties on Civil Government, and started off his thought in fundamental agreement with Locke. He agreed with him about the origins of society in the State of Nature and the principles of Freedom and Equality for all Men, but drew very, very different conclusions about how society should be set up to ensure those principles.

Locke (following in the footsteps of Machiavelli) thought—since 2000 years of philosophizing and preaching had been completely ineffectual against Man’s natural desires and the methods that had been created in order to do so led to such great torment (sin, the threat of Hell)—that we may as well act as we naturally are, instead of how we ought to be and that would lead to happiness. Man is naturally Selfish, and his two main concerns are Self-preservation and Self-Interest. But, Locke thought, if Self-Interest could be trained to be Enlightened Self-Interest—where Man has the Right to believe whatever he wants, say whatever he wants, and be whatever he wants, but must also recognize the same Right for everyone else—then Society would be much more peaceful and prosperous and the Individual much more content.

These ideas began to spread throughout Europe like wildfire by men known as the Philosophes—popularizers of Enlightenment thought—and people everywhere began to realize that all the old loyalties—God, heredity, social class, age and even gender—were simply myths used to keep the People down and resigned to be content with their miserable living conditions. Locke and the rest of the Enlighteners rationalized everything till all tradition and convention was left without a leg upon which to stand—till it seemed like anything was possible.

This is the backdrop upon which Rousseau entered on the wings of a scathing critique of Enlightenment thought, in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, that completely destroyed its confidence right at its grand moment of triumph. His insights were nuanced looks at the Human Condition that peered much more deeply than Locke’s philosophy into the phenomenon known as Man to try and explore the results of this new philosophy of Individualism and what it actually meant for people’s lives: for Politics and Community, Love and Friendship, Morals and Art, and even Human Purpose.

And Kant, following in Rousseau’s footsteps, saw the degradation to human relationships that would result from this over-emphasis of the Individual and attempted to re-shape Enlightenment thought to make up for these supposed deficiencies. Kant was the last great Enlightenment Philosopher and all Movements and Political Programs—ranging from Romanticism to Communism to Fascism—that have come after him have been a result of the perceived failure of Kant, and of the initial Enlighteners, to adequately account for the Human Condition and to give a place to an exclusively Human quality that would separate us from the determinism of Natural phenomenon and the Animal Kingdom.

I will delve more deeply in posts to come into the critique made by Rousseau that has been so persuasive that it has shaped all of Western history since him…

Koyaanisqatsi

The Smart Phone is a marvel of modern technology. It is an empowering tool that gives you instant access to any and all information one could possibly desire—wirelessly, at a moments notice. It helps you to better organize your life, to keep in touch with distant friends and family, and to discover new and exciting things. It has processing capabilities that were unimaginable even just five years ago and only promises greater achievements in the not so distant future. It puts the world at your fingertips and your wish is its command.

And that's why, "You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you."

The Smart Phone is the ultimate Individualistic technology. It is designed to conform to your specific needs and is capable of being modified to your personal requirements. Its intuitive functionality integrates with your daily routine and no two phones will ever end up alike. It is customizable down to the most minute detail. From the Apps that you download, to the music you load upon it, to the custom case in which you encapsulate it—every facet of it allows you to express your-Self and to differentiate yourself from your neighbors.

"Because there's no one else quite like you."

And while this technology is awesome, not to mention incredibly useful, American culture is becoming increasingly built on this adolescent fantasy that life is all about you as an Individual—your ideas, your appetites, and your needs. And these HTC ads play on and fan the flame of that fantasy, with its constant repetition of the word “You.” You. You…You! It's all about you! You are the warm little center that the life of this world crowds around. The whole world exists to satisfy your desires, to make you happy. "Your whole world seems to center around you, it'd be easy to make the mistake that maybe you're why the world was made."

And in this Culture of increasing Hyper or Radical Individualism, everyone has set up their "own little separate system" and cannot risk interdependence. We are simply Individuals who have come together voluntarily and who can separate just as easily, without maiming ourselves. There is no longer a bond—Natural or Artificial—binding one to the other and what we are seeing is what Nietzsche called the civilized re-animalization of Man. He thought that a system built on our basest instincts—those found in the State of Nature (self-interest; self-preservation)—will eventually reduce us back to them. And he made it his life work to try and combat this problem.

Whereas, I would not prescribe anything quite as drastic as Nietzsche did (although it's not entirely fair, there can be an argument made that his ideas inspired Fascism, especially Nazism) I don't see how it would be reasonable for us to expect our Leaders—Political or Business—or anyone else who is supposed to be our Role Models or Heroes, in a Democracy (derived from the Greek dêmos "people" and krátos "power") to act with any concern for the Common Good, if the citizens, who their power is supposedly derived from, have no conception of it for themselves.

The High Cost of Low Prices

The foundation for our current conceptions of Individualism was laid during the Age of Enlightenment, in the 17th and 18th centuries by two men: 1) the Englishman, John Locke, and 2) the Frenchman, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A battle between these two men’s ideas has raged for the last 250 years, and, very broadly speaking, one could say that modern Conservatives are Lockeans, whereas modern Liberals follow Rousseau. Most people would probably say it is more Locke vs. Marx—and in a world-historical sense this may be accurate—but here in America, where Marx’s critique of Private Property has never held much sway, I would place it with Rousseau, who’s schema still allowed for Private Property (plus Rousseau is the initial source of the search for alternatives to Classical Liberalism which proceeded Marx by about 100 years).

Rousseau is an extremely interesting and complicated character, which I will very much be returning to at a later date, but for now I want to focus on Locke: the most influential thinker upon our Founding Fathers.

Locke, like many thinkers of the Enlightenment, based his ideas on what Modern Political Philosophers called: THE STATE OF NATURE. The State of Nature was a hypothetical thought-experiment first proposed by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan, in 1651. It is a pre-social condition, in which Man lives as a solitary being, that “existed” before the incorporation of men into particular groups or cultures. It was used as a way to strip away all the human conventions and traditions that had been invented in order to discover Man as Man based on Nature—as opposed to Man of a particular time, place and culture—which has been the goal of Philosophy since Socrates. And what was found there, was that Man's two deepest motivating factors are Self-Preservation and Self-Interest, and these two natural ideas form the basis for all of Modern Philosophy.

Locke’s most influential work was his Two Treaties on Civil Government, written in 1689 during his six year exile in Holland. In the First Treaties, he lays out an argument refuting divinely-ordained, hereditary, absolute, patriarchal monarchy; in the Second Treaties, he argues that the only legitimate form of government is one derived from the Consent of the People based on Freedom and Equality. And as Thomas Jefferson appropriated for the Declaration of Independence, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles.”

For Locke—and all the other State of Nature Philosophers—Man is by Nature an Individual, so he concluded that the only reason we need government is for the protection of our Individual Rights, which we naturally possess—namely life, liberty and property. In Locke’s view, governments were originally instituted among Men in order to have an impartial arbiter in Rights disputes, to protect the Rights that Men possess which predate government—Natural Rights, discoverable thru Reason, that we have in the State of Nature, before the creation of artificial living conditions known as "Societies." These are the Rights annunciated for us, as Americans, in the Bill of Rights.

These were very radical ideas at the time, and flew in the face of every previous civilization—all based on the dictates of a god. The veil had been lifted and no longer did Man need to rely on myths as the basis for their societies. Instead, they would be replaced with reasoned Consent that was available to all human beings regardless of their geographic location or cultural upbringing. It was Socrates—the original questioner—in action, but with one big difference: Socrates never believed it possible or desirable to create a society without binding myths or “misinterpreted accidents” which add up to a vision of the world for a specific People.

So…what the hell happened? How did we end up with this mess we see before us today?

—With a politician who tries to sell a President's former senatorial seat and another who thinks that presidents are above the law; with our system in shambles because of Wall Street derivative scams and Enron type meltdowns; with faith in the government, the schools, organized labor, the press, the justice system, big business, and God at all time lows.—

Unfortunately, the easy-going conclusions of Locke did not suffice, nor did their real-world application work out as well as it was hoped, yet somehow our system has not experienced any crisis of legitimacy for the general population. Our system has become a confused, incoherent amalgam of the last 250 years of Philosophy, yet somehow manages to function, and function very well, for enough of a majority of Individuals that there is no will, public or private, to do anything about it.

German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, could see all the way back in the late 18th century that this new system proposed by Locke was the greatest engine of stability ever created for a society because it was the most adept at satisfying the Individual's needs, but he had just one slight qualm: the price of it was Human Dignity.

Don't be so Mayo!

Advertising is a weird phenomenon. It tends to be a Chicken and the Egg type scenario. What comes first: the Marketer manufacturing the concept or the concept which is already manifest that the Marketer just co-opts in order to be “hip with the kids” or current/relevant? I would say that, unless it is an extremely “Underground” or “Under the Radar” Brand, then, it is generally the later case because Marketers are not “Creators”—they are not Artists; they rely on market research, which tells them the current climate in which they are trying to “position” their Brand and the type of Values/Lifestyles/Language they want to employ in order to “Target” a certain “Segment” of the population.

As you may have noticed, a lot of Brands today are trying to position themselves with this type of Individualistic attitude/Brand Personality in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of the Market no matter how far of a stretch it may be for the correlation between the product and this concept.

Case in Point: Miracle Whip.

What the hell do condiments have to do with defining one’s Individuality/Identity/Unique Personality? Does anyone really believe that by choosing Miracle Whip over Mayonnaise that they will not “go unnoticed,” “blend in,” “be ordinary,” “boring,” or “bland?”

Will this product help us to define who we are as an Individual and help us to create our own personal Lifestyle Brand? By choosing the “zesty” flavor of Miracle Whip over the tired, old egg-white flavor of Mayonnaise will we be rebelling against the System, bucking the Status Quo, or redefining a Generation? Does Miracle Whip’s refusal to conform help us to be more “Creative” or to “think outside the box?” By using Miracle Whip do we become the “Hero” or the “Outlaw” (or maybe one of the other 10 overly-simplified personality Archetypes that marketers use—based on Jungian (as in Carl Jung, a one time collaborator of Freud's) psychology—to define their target audience)?

Do we really believe that the most minute consumer decisions can express our Individuality and that the Brands we choose actually make a difference to our identities, our aesthetics, even our happiness?

We are our own unique, one of a kind flavor and we will not tone it down!

Some Hip Youths in an undisclosed location on the East Coast, who are still trying to decide which sandwich condiment best expresses their Personal Brand Lifestyle.

There is a Policemen Inside All Our Heads...

After the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties in America, there became an over-emphasis on the need to be an Individual, to be oneself, to be a free, autonomous Being defined over and against the “Organization Man” in the “gray flannel suit.” The attack began with a direct, physical assault on the United States government, which soon failed because the government simply had more guns/soldiers. So the Radicals’ strategy was altered a bit. It began to be thought that if one could just change one’s own mind, to start thinking for oneself and remove the controls planted there by the State and the Corporations—which kept people subservient to the dominate "system"—then the old order could still be overthrown and it would be “the dawning of the Age of Aquarius,” of non-conformity, of Freedom and Democracy, and, above all, Community.

This new form of Individualism, however, is much more radical and doctrinaire than the old brand of US Individualism—personified by the image of the Rugged Individualist—and replaces the idea of Self-reliance with the vague notion of Self-esteem. People wanted new ways to express their “Self” in a seemingly conformist world; to differentiate their Self from “The Masses;” to break free from oppressive and repressive Tradition and Convention. The only problem is that there is no guide for being oneself. People then tried to “invent themselves,” but where do these new values come from? Is the Self something that can be deliberately found, or made, or does it require instruction from Nature and History, as well? What exactly does an invented or discovered Self look like and how does one know when they are being authentic or inauthentic to this Self?

The idea of Self-fulfillment that went along with this Movement gave a bit of glamour to this new Self-centeredness, but it was by no means a noble act—it was merely a concession, an admittance that all other alternatives had failed.

It is now become more important to feel awesome, than to do awesome things; we have become more accepting, but also much less demanding. We are now Egoists, not in a vicious way, but because the Ego is all there is in present theory. We are a nation of narcissists taking pictures of ourselves in mirrors and posting them on the internet in order to get instant Ego-gratification. But there’s nothing new to be seen in a mirror and this Self-centeredness has actually become the ultimate form of dependence which has no other standard than the opinion of Others about our-Self.

And the ultimate irony of it all is that this Radical Individualism does not seem to satisfy the Self. The initial goal of the Sixties movement was really an incoherent idea from the start—somehow through greater emphasis of the Individual, we will ultimately create greater Community—and we are now feeling the repercussions of its dissonance. We have become a nation of Individual Wills, simply bouncing off of one another with no Common Good taken into consideration. Republicans try to express this idea when they talk about "The Real America”—apparently still in existence somewhere in the South and Midwest—yet, whenever Liberals try to express it they are denounced by the same Republicans as being Marxists. This is not a new problem, we have just reached the end of its history—the culmination of a project begun 250 years ago during the Age of Enlightenment, which has been criticized by every major Philosopher (on the Left and the Right) that has lived since then.

In the Beginning There Was the Word

What does it mean to be an “Individual” and where does this concept come from?

Individualism's origins begin in the late Middle Ages (The Dark Ages) in the works of early Renaissance writers, artists and scholars rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church. A few centuries later, Individual autonomy is once again asserted by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation, further deteriorating the Catholic domination of the West. And the concept becomes fully developed during the Enlightenment, in the writings of Classical Liberals (not to be confused with our current crop of Liberals) such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes who helped drive the final nail into the coffin of the Church's authority over Civil Society and private life.

Being an “Individual” necessarily entails antagonism against others because of an assertion of one’s own beliefs and interests against the commonly held concerns of "The Masses.” It is the promotion of one's own goals and desires thru independence and self-reliance, while opposing most external interference upon one's interests by society (the dominant Culture/Majority) or institution (The Government/State). Individualism’s natural by-product is the concept of “Freedom,” in which one has the Right to Freedom of thought, of conscience, of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, etc., all secured by Private Property and promoted by a Government founded to protect these cherished ends.

Individualism also means the emphasis of Rights over Duties, of desire over responsibility, of the singular Will over the general. It is the Right to your own personal satisfactions regardless of the cost to the community—in which you are inextricably a part, despite your level of participation/non-participation in the Whole. It also attenuates the possibility of “Culture”—defined as a shared set of assumptions which unites and binds a People—because the Individualist’s goal is to transcend the commonly held beliefs and create one’s own standards upon which to live.

As the bohemian artist Oscar Wilde put it, “Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” An important function to be sure, but where does one draw the line between the desire to be one’s self and the desire to be part of a community; to be independently minded and to participate in a Culture; to be a part of something bigger than one’s self as opposed to merely an atom in a continually changing flux?