On
Coming To Terms With Society
By Doug Soderstrom
03 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The existential task of coming
to terms with society represents man’s most difficult challenge.
Society refers to anything and everything that occurs when people en
masse come together, those things that we, as a people of any particular
culture, have in common; our shared concerns, common artifacts, social
institutions, and an amorphous blend of attitudes and values. And in
order to understand the enormous impact of society, it is absolutely
essential that everyone recognize the fact that “no man is an
island”…… that it is impossible for one to live his
or her life without “being touched” by the reach of society,
without being affected by the stretch of those with whom we live our
lives.
At the moment of birth the challenge to understand begins, not that
man wants to understand “what is going on,” but, as a human
being, he essentially has no choice but to understand, for a choice
not to understand would soon relegate him to the status of “something
less than human,” a step not far above that of being “an
ape,” and an insipid one at that! Consequently, as the cerebral
cortex continues to expand, man has little choice but to respond in
kind, little choice but to wonder about “the truth,” the
truth about God, if he (she or it) perhaps does, in fact, exist, about
what happens to us when we die, and, last but certainly not least, what
it means to be a human being. And, one way or the other, every one of
us will, with little choice, struggle to find an answer to each of these
questions.
But no one does such a thing alone. For everything we come to understand
has been dealt with (“reality” having been massaged) by
those preceding us. Over the period of a lifetime, many things will
be brought to our attention, but only after having passed through the
“filtered lens” of society. We would very much like to believe
that each of us sees reality for what it “really is.” However,
such is never the case. We need to understand that to do such a thing
(to know something “as it really is”) is an objective impossibility,
in that those out there, those who seem to be in power, will do everything
they can to “tell us” what we are “supposed to”
see, that is, what we are supposed to believe. And, of course, the existential
challenge for us, as human beings, is to “sift through the chaff,”
you know, the crap, the propaganda fed to us by those in power, and,
through an independently chosen decision to think for ourselves, to
know that we have done our very best to figure out what “the truth”
just might be.
It is perhaps instructive to look upon society as something of a “large
giant,” one that embodies that of many smaller giants (parents,
teachers, church authorities, employers, generals, policemen, etc.),
the primary purpose of which is to maintain order, that of protecting
us from ourselves as well as that of others: a parent’s hold restraining
her child from running into a busy street; a teacher demanding that
students pay attention in class; a preacher urging laymen to read their
Bibles; an employer requiring workers to show up on time; generals demanding
that soldiers kill on call; policemen arresting those who speed, etc.
Quite certainly no one can argue against such a need for control. For
without such restraint, society would be wracked with chaos. Without
the firm hold of a parent, children (especially adolescents) would run
wild killing themselves as well as others, students would destroy the
sanctity of a classroom, layman would lead sinful lives, employees would
not get to work on time, soldiers would refuse to fight, and men and
women on the street would violate many laws.
On the other hand, society can be seen as that of a large giant that
enchains man; one that binds his soul, kills his spirit, destroys his
dreams, dulling the fine edge of a once proud conscience. A force that
ensures that man will be an automaton just like every other man on the
street, one that compels him to become, and for a lifetime to remain,
a compliant cog in the troubled machinery of life, that he suspend all
powers of thought, that he take pride in having allowed himself to become
a functionary, a mere clerk, duped by the lies of a land polluted by
the poison of paradise lost.
Every human being is required to make a choice; to be controlled by
society or else to rebel against it…… to allow one’s
self to have become a slave of the powers that be or to strike back.
The very chains ripped from that of one’s own body are the same
that constrain another. For those who remove such chains before they
are ready, death and destruction will surely follow. However, for those
who fail to remove such chains, their lives will amount to little more
than the hop, skip, and jump of a scum-sucking stooge on his way to
pick up a check.
Every one of us, as human beings, have within us the seeds of great
hope as well as those that lead to destruction. And, of course, the
secret to greatness is that of knowing the truth of oneself. For those
who are not ready to shed such chains, it would be a far better thing
for them to welcome their keepers. But for those who are prepared, ready
to make their own way in life, it is essential that they muster the
courage to demand that the shackles be removed. However, if society
is unwilling to acquiesce, unwilling to grant one the leisure of liberty,
then it would seem that folks have little choice but to “bust
loose;” with no consent whatsoever, to move forward, ready and
willing to tear down “the walls of society,” doing whatever
must be done in order to make their way in life!
However, one must keep in mind the alternative, a completely different
way of dealing with society; the private path of the saint, the lonely
road allowing oneself to be imprisoned within “the walls of society,”
willingly choosing to suffer in silence, bearing one’s burden
alone, an alternative every bit as noble as that of choosing to take
control of society. Such is the way of “the lamb,” rather
than that of “the lion.” But there are few willing to take
the way of the saint. Considering the actions of the great civil rights
leader, Martin Luther King, when he chose to challenge society he was
no doubt acting as “a lion,” but in peacefully submitting
to authorities, in allowing himself to be hauled off to jail, he was
no doubt conducting himself as “a lamb;” neither better
than the other, each perfectly appropriate for the occasion at hand.
Now, a couple of points regarding morality as it relates to society.
How one chooses to navigate the rather murky (no doubt “very gray”)
waters associated with an effort to distinguish between good and evil
will no doubt determine one’s approach to morality, which in turn
will influence how one eventually comes to terms with society. In society,
there are some who rather proudly refer to themselves as conservatives,
while others, every bit as proud, refer to themselves as liberals, and,
as we will see, their approaches to good and evil have set the stage
for an ongoing battle between folks that have little, if anything, in
common, folks who are no doubt breeds apart!
Conservatives, the most extreme who tend to be rather authoritarian
(harbor an authoritarian personality) believe that human beings, in
and of themselves, are inherently evil. According to such folks, in
order for society to function effectively, it is imperative that people
be controlled. For conservatives then, many of whom tend to be religious,
God has evolved into nothing more than a mere projection of their own
rather narrow-minded view of the world. God and country having become
one and the same, the purpose of society becomes that of protecting
them from others who do not agree with what they believe to be true.
Thus, in having designated themselves to be the true believers, the
true followers of God, the divine protectors of society, they have become
convinced that they have been given not only the right, but also the
responsibility, to punish those who disagree with them. As a result
of such thinking, conservatives seem to have gravitated towards a kind
of “personal morality,” an assortment of values that disapprove
of anything that might tend to threaten the spiritual welfare of the
individual, and, as a matter of course, the moral fabric of society,
anything that might lead one to disregard the sanctity of the status
quo requirements needed to maintain social order (homosexual behavior,
religious practices and activities that are inconsistent with what they
believe, atheism, liberal values, socialism, humanism, environmentalism,
stem cell research, abortion, sexual behavior outside the bonds of marriage,
the use of drugs, anything that might weaken an authority figure’s
control over others, and, of course, educational practices that encourage
young people to develop critical thinking skills, those that urge them
to critically examine the authenticity and legitimacy of the church
as well as that of their own nation).
On the other hand, there are liberals, and these folks believe that
human beings, in and of themselves, are inherently good. They tend to
look upon society (that of the status quo) as something that restrains
the human spirit, stifles creativity, and thus limits the capacity for
one to develop his human potential. And for such individuals (most of
whom tend not to be religious even though some are rather spiritual)
God becomes synonymous with that of the higher self (the moral inner
core of man), that which directs one to live above and beyond the status
quo requirements of society. For the liberal then, society becomes something
of an antiquated barrier, something that essentially gets in one’s
way, something that hinders man from doing what needs to be done in
order to change society for the better. Simply said, liberals believe
that “the needs of man” are much more fundamental, and therefore
much more important, than the so-called “needs of society.”
As a result of such thinking, liberals have gravitated towards a morality
that is devoted to the best interests of society, a kind of “social
morality,” an assortment of values that affirms one’s right,
even one’s responsibility, to challenge society: a need to risk
“what is” for “what perhaps could be;” a willingness
to challenge those in authority; the need for social protest (the need
to protest against such things as war, racial injustice, poverty, laws
that deprive homosexuals of their human rights, as well as activities
that lead to the destruction of the environment); and, of course when
necessary, the explicit need for individuals to engage in that of civil
disobedience.
Clearly then, it seems that our country may well be in the beginning
stages of a turbulent time much like that of the 1960’s. Given
the last two presidential elections along with that of a host of social
and political polls, it is clear that our nation is divided right down
the middle; one-half of us rather liberal (the blue states), the other
populated by red state conservatives. Two vastly different moralities:
one believing that individuals should live their lives according to
the status quo requirements of society (the need to support traditional
family values), the other encouraging folks to question authority, to
stand up, even to rebel, against society; each aghast, staring at the
other wondering “what in the hell is wrong with you,” puzzled
by the incredible stupidity and evil of their adversary, dumbfounded
as to why “they” never seem “to get it!”
Ultimately then, each of us must figure out how to best cope with society;
to become an obedient slave like that of the conservative or to challenge
the status quo like that of the liberal, but, of course, with a realization
that either heading taken to the extreme would be detrimental for society.
Therefore, it is imperative that each of these forces be accorded their
rightful place in society; the conservative to preserve the wisdom of
the past, while the liberal is freed to challenge the limitations of
society. But regardless of one’s persuasion, be it conservative
or liberal, one thing that every rational person can agree is that the
much more legitimate needs of mankind (that which is required for the
human race to survive) must be allowed to supersede the rather provincial
and, no doubt, shortsighted interests of any particular group (vis a
vis nation) of folks. Otherwise, no one: not the good guys nor the bad
guys; our allies or the enemy; Christians, Jews, Hindus, or the Islamic,
will survive. Thus, I suggest that the goal for everyone (conservatives
as well as liberals) be that of peace, love, and justice, that each
of us, as individual human beings, be ready and willing to lay our life
down for that of our brother……. and, when the time comes
(and it will) to do the same for that of our enemy.
Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D.
Psychologist
February 2, 2007
[email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights