It now becomes clearer to me that whenever I have used the term, "Westerner", in a somewhat pejorative fashion, I have been referring, in my own mind, to the embodied characteristics of someone who lives in seeming oblivious proximity to evil, whilst having an almost entirely abstract opposition to it.
To put it in plainer terms, the project of individualism -- a quintessentially Western project for sure -- seems to have failed in many ways. The failure comes about through the economic system ALONG WITH ITS DOGMATIC REINFORCEMENT of "individualism" as an ideology or ethical system (the latter construct being a contradiction in relation to itself). If my individualism is based upon my ability to compete against my peers, this does not bring about a joyful sense of inner freedom, but draws into much closer proximity than it would otherwise be, the psychological feeling of the depressive position. (The bourgeois ideological way of framing this is: "My freedom is your unfreedom." What is rarely taken into account in this formulation is that it also works in reverse: "Your freedom is my unfreedom."
Thus the contradiction inherent in the project of Western individualism is that it awakens, as an ubiquitous lived experience, the state of mind that is the "depressive position". Others are always capable of outdoing one in all sorts of ways -- and such outdoing is experienced as a smite upon one's individualism. (The consequent feeling is exactly what is meant by the "depressive position").
To have to live with such a logical and emotional contradiction in his everyday social life is what undoes the Westerner. Specifically -- and here's the rub -- he cannot deal appropriately and openly with evil in his midst because to do so raises his awareness of his own limitations in confronting a power that seems to be greater than he: His very individualism is threatened in the process of having to acknowledge any sort of power that is greater than his own. The Western individual, in confronting evil in his midst, finds himself in the depressive position in relation to a greater power (due to the very force it has that compels him to acknowledge it) -- at least, this is how he feels within himself. So, he necessarily avoids acknowledging what is wrong within his community, in order not to feel his strength weakened. Thus he maintains the illusion of his individualism as a potent and immeasurable force (whilst knowing deep down that it actually isn't).
Evil in the community is the limit of the contemporary Westerner's individualism. He dare not venture out beyond himself to tackle it (at least, not as "an individual") -- and furthermore, he sees others who do as necessarily being subjected to an overwhelming depression (thus certain views recently -- that the people who looked most miserable in the school photo I presented on this blog were no doubt me, because I dared to tackle evil.)
The Westerner, believing himself to be strong, is weak. The collectivist (such as myself) believing herself to be capable but not necessarily strong in an objective way, is morally and ethically more powerful.
7 comments:
What is "evil"? I'd say from the description given above that it is slavery for what is "my freedom is your unfreedom" than a form of slavery which is sanctioned collectively by bourgeois society.
What is "good" then? It is freedom, the freedom of each being the condition for the freedom of all as opposed to the freedom of one to use another's slavery to her advantage.
What is "evil"? I'd say from the description given above that it is slavery for what is "my freedom is your unfreedom" than a form of slavery which is sanctioned collectively by bourgeois society.
What is "good" then? It is freedom, the freedom of each being the condition for the freedom of all as opposed to the freedom of one to use another's slavery to her advantage.
I'm talking about how members of a society based on BOURGEOIS individualism find it difficult if not impossible to deal equitably with such issues as workplace abuse, or other forms of abuse. Normally they have to revert to identity politics -- which is never equitable -- in order to get something done.
But you are right -- there is a more pervasive form of evil in the bondage of "individualism" that is represented as freedom itself.
The point about "depressive personality character" is well taken. Fits in nicely with my view of why the workers, the majority of society, are unreceptive to revolutionary appeal, even democratic revolutionary appeals. Fromm analysed this and conceptualized it along the lines of a dominant and submissive dynamic with the submissive falling into line with "depressive character structure", of the individual being brought up to see themselves as essentially the center of the Universe and solipsistically blaming themselves for every "failure" within the competivtive individualistic dynamic force upon them with the marketplace for commodidites--their skills being amongst the commodities being marketed.
It's all "hooray and the devil take the hindmost" and sometimes even former winners lose and with those losses, narrowly focussed on the individual, lose sight of the forest for the tree. In short, they become masochistically resigned until the next 'challenge' allows them to possibly reach the recognition and petting strokes from their bosses/parents/assorted authorities, that they all so dearly strive to stir towards nods of approval.
Although (but they maybe this actually supports your analysis) I notice that many people in the U.S. and also Latin America - which I and most historians, most Latin Americans, etc., say is mostly Western although I think you disagree
- take great pleasure in saying they have no power to change things, there is nothing they can do, etc. I of course think *that* is a power grab.
I mean Western in the Mugabe sense -- the same way he uses it.
Yes -- passivity is obviously a power grab. One point I have noticed about Western (in that sense above) attitudes is "teach me! teach me!" or what feminists have noticed and put on their bingo card: (something like) "If you want me to understand and respect you, you have to tutor me about how to be this thing you want from me."
It is a breathtakingly lazy and self-disrepecting attitude -- but there it is.
Long live the Japanese.
It's the attitude of anyone who is comfortably complacent enough to feel that they really don't need to learn more than they know.
Post a Comment