My upbringing until my mid teens was training for a severe form of impersonal conduct. Although originally British, my culture had merged ideas with those of traditional, African culture. To this extent, what stood out in life, in terms of overall meaning, was "the tribe", whether white or black, and not by any means the ideas, goals or aspirations of individuals.
I did not by any means consider myself an individual, but I experienced the inexpressible fact that I was part of a historical movement of people defined by a time and place. As such, "choice" was --and remains-- an alien idea to me, to the extent that I think someone must have something tricky up their sleeve if they are framing anything in that way. My practical options were limited. They came down to how I would spend my 20 cents in the supermarket. Everything else was a product of necessity and tradition. No opportunities emerged to make choices on a larger scale.
The most alien component of Western culture is the idea that my identity is a feature of my capacity to make choices. I don't hinge that much moral importance on the ideology of choice. I express my "choice" in two ways, fundamentally. Either I engage with you, or I withdraw into my default mode of impersonal relations. I'm much more comfortable not to engage too much with others on a personal level. I have found it very difficult to translate an often impersonal standpoint into terms that express "personal choices". There exist many fanatical ideologues who express the attitude that one ought to always be in the mode of making and defending choices, in order to fulfill ones moral obligations in the world. I find that very exhausting -- not least because it involves translating an impersonal stance into one that seems more personal and "chosen".
Having relinquished this project of trying to adapt myself to Western culture I feel much better.
I do make choices, but they are much deeper than those to which the ideology of Western individualism would lend its credence. I decide not to participate in any abusive relationships, no matter what the cost is to my finances or to my credibility. I decide not to participate in an ideology that has no intrinsic meaning to me -- that of individual "choices" and how they are supposed to form one's identity. I can't become a Western educator, because I disagree with this fundamental tenet of Western culture. It has a false feel: I cannot represent it.
My capacity to be impersonal is linked to an inherent stoicism. I have the innate capacity to switch off energy that would otherwise flow to personal concerns. I enter a state where neither wakefulness nor sleep preside: I enter this state of psychological hypothermia, whenever this world becomes too stressful. When this happens, I can immediate focus much more clearly on practical concerns using abstract thinking very efficiently.
A highly impersonal state of mind is my primeval lair: useful to recover from what afflicts me.
I did not by any means consider myself an individual, but I experienced the inexpressible fact that I was part of a historical movement of people defined by a time and place. As such, "choice" was --and remains-- an alien idea to me, to the extent that I think someone must have something tricky up their sleeve if they are framing anything in that way. My practical options were limited. They came down to how I would spend my 20 cents in the supermarket. Everything else was a product of necessity and tradition. No opportunities emerged to make choices on a larger scale.
The most alien component of Western culture is the idea that my identity is a feature of my capacity to make choices. I don't hinge that much moral importance on the ideology of choice. I express my "choice" in two ways, fundamentally. Either I engage with you, or I withdraw into my default mode of impersonal relations. I'm much more comfortable not to engage too much with others on a personal level. I have found it very difficult to translate an often impersonal standpoint into terms that express "personal choices". There exist many fanatical ideologues who express the attitude that one ought to always be in the mode of making and defending choices, in order to fulfill ones moral obligations in the world. I find that very exhausting -- not least because it involves translating an impersonal stance into one that seems more personal and "chosen".
Having relinquished this project of trying to adapt myself to Western culture I feel much better.
I do make choices, but they are much deeper than those to which the ideology of Western individualism would lend its credence. I decide not to participate in any abusive relationships, no matter what the cost is to my finances or to my credibility. I decide not to participate in an ideology that has no intrinsic meaning to me -- that of individual "choices" and how they are supposed to form one's identity. I can't become a Western educator, because I disagree with this fundamental tenet of Western culture. It has a false feel: I cannot represent it.
My capacity to be impersonal is linked to an inherent stoicism. I have the innate capacity to switch off energy that would otherwise flow to personal concerns. I enter a state where neither wakefulness nor sleep preside: I enter this state of psychological hypothermia, whenever this world becomes too stressful. When this happens, I can immediate focus much more clearly on practical concerns using abstract thinking very efficiently.
A highly impersonal state of mind is my primeval lair: useful to recover from what afflicts me.
No comments:
Post a Comment