America's got problems. Lots of them. Particularly the loathness of its citizens to break away from the fold and voice their opinions.
The generalized sense of American apathy is not, by any means, a recent development. Political theorist, Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the negative effects of American democratic equality, saying that it reduces everyone to a state of commom mediocrity. John Stuart Mill hits the nail on the head when he speaks of the tyranny of prevailing thought and opinion that stifles free exression and diversion from the norm in society.
John Stuart Mill, in his treatise On Liberty, speaks of the importance of human diversity and individuality, which he posits as the foundations for a truly just and effective society. In spite of their obvious and manifold benefits, Mill argues that certain modern tendencies and conditions endanger the very existence of human individuality and diversity of thought and practice, which form the backbone of our intellectual and political culture. The potential loss of human individuality and diversity threatens to cultivate a “tyranny of the majority” in a society that “is itself the tyrant…over the individuals who compose it” (Mill, 4). In order to counter modern society’s spiraling downfall into “the despotism of custom” (Mill, 67), Mill suggests the promotion of eccentricity and various “experiments in living” (Mill, 54) amongst individuals.
As progressive beings, capable of rationalization and reflection, individuals have the opportunity to express ideas, debate concepts, and, through their dissension, discover and defend truths in order to foster justice in society. Vigorous debate and “intelligent deviation” (Mill, 57) from the norm not only require individuals to question, reconsider, and prove their beliefs in order to find the truth, but also to foster the self-development of the individual. A society that encourages debate and dissension engenders true freedom of thought and expression.
Modern society, however, threatens to dismantle Mill’s ideal system of debate and “intelligent deviation,” in favor of the tyranny of the majority of “prevailing thought and feeling” (Mill, 4). In On Liberty, Mill addresses the major problem of the “effect of custom” (Mill, 5). The tyranny in modern society is not necessarily political or cultural, but manifests itself in the domination of “prevailing thought and feeling” (Mill, 4), that shapes individuals and that can stifle individuality. Under the influence of the prevailing opinions in society, individuals, in an effort to conform to society’s standards of right and wrong, lose their individuality and become servile and apathetic. Whereas individuals in Mill’s ideal society concern themselves with the search for truth and justice through debate and discussion, modern individuals—if, indeed, Mill would even call them that—occupy themselves with conforming to a pre-determined and unquestioned societal mould. Such a society imperils freedom through the deadening force of stagnancy and imitation.
Advertising and pop-art and their effects upon the consumer are manifestations of the negative effects of modernity upon society and the individual. In “From Hero to Celebrity: A Human Pseudo-Event,” Daniel Boorstin discusses the redefinition of fame and the hero in modern society. A modern celebrity, he argues, “is someone who is known for his well-knownness;” “his qualities—or rather his lack of qualities—illustrate our particular problems. He is neither good nor bad, great nor petty. He is the human psycho-event” (Boorstin, 57). Whereas celebrities and heroes in previous years were noted for their heroic qualities, merit, intellect, or admirable deeds, celebrities are famous simply for their fame. Celebrities are the “receptacles into which we pour our own purposelessness” (Boorstin, 60). Pop-art and advertisements are the children of modern society as a machine which produces multiple images of itself, in hopes of trying to banish ironic frustrations and fill a void that yearns for individuals who can fit the extravagant expectations of human greatness (Boorstin, 76). This need transforms into an unending discourse on the self and on the different elements of society, a monologue of self-reverence and self- reference. In a similar vein, Guy Debord's "Society of the Spectacle" speaks of the spectacle as that which lies in “the world’s loss of unity” and which becomes the common language “that bridges this division” (Debord, 22). The divisions united by the spectacle are the world and the (superior) self-representation held up to the world. The spectators make up the “world” category and are united in their isolation by the common thread of the spectacle, but still remain isolated on account of the nature of the modern society. The individuals who have seen and shared the experience of a spectacle, which I would like to define not only as an event but as an image or any work of “art,” are united in their common experience or recognition, and in their shared alienation from the object.
Thus, due to a lack of communication, useful dissent, and active debate in society individuals are both united in their ignorance and inability to break from the prevailing tyranny of opinion, and also isolated in their massification on account of a lack of communication and social engagement.
Mill speaks of the importance of active participation in society, which is the only way for the individual to gain ground against the tyranny of the majority. Under the yoke of “dull and torpid assent” (Mill, 39), individuality and diversity disappear or are stamped out by a prevailing school of thought that discourages dissent, which it deems dangerous to the social fabric. Often times the prevailing opinion in society, as a mere consequence of it being established, has not been questioned for a long period of time and has thus been banished into Mill’s realm of dead dogmas. Thus, members of the society’s majority refuse to pay heed to dissent “because they are sure that it is false [and] assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty” (Mill, 17). As Mill clarifies, “there is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted and assuming its truth for the truth of not permitting its refutation” (Mill, 18). In this way, the accepted mores in a fixed society become specters of their former selves because they remain unquestioned. “Instead of a vivid conception and a living belief,” we learn, “there remain only a few phrases retained by rote [of social beliefs]; or, if any part, the shell and the husk only of the meaning is retained, the finer essence being lost” (Mill, 38). Modern society operates according to a system of outdated and unquestioned beliefs that, because they have not been examined and reevaluated, have lost any value or meaning for individuals and that have become no more than empty words upon which we have built our society and our system of mores.
Because individuals in a static society are not encouraged to question the system, they fall into a fixed and unevaluated pattern of thought and behavior which stems from society’s influence and denial of minority opinions. Modern society’s discouragement of the questioning of its tenets and principles creates indifference and apathy in individuals. Rather than being inquisitive and finding their own path, individuals become part of society’s collective mediocrity, which Mill refers to as “the ascendant power among mankind” (Mill, 63). Instead of diverse forms of human association, members of society, because they fail to challenge public opinion, fall into “‘the deep slumber of a decided opinion’” (Mill, 41). Governments play upon the massification of individuals and act as organs of the tendencies of the masses. Once this state of intellectual and political stupor has been established, individuals lose their ability to self-actualize and are reduced to “ape-like” imitation (Mill, 56).
In order to counter the dangerous effects of massification, Mill proposes the remedy of unfettered freedom of thought and expression, including the nurturing of eccentricity and the formation of “experiments of living,” to encourage and preserve individuality and diversity, for “no one’s idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another” (Mill, 55). Individuals, Mill asserts, must be willing to question the authority of decided opinions and to reexamine their beliefs and practices in order to reach the greatest good and utility for the society at large. Mill’s “experiments of living” form the backbone in his plan for a healthy society, for “as it is useful that while mankind is imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character…and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically” (Mill, 54). Mill places great importance on the practical and utilitarian aspects of different approaches, for it is only through alternative forms of association that we can sufficiently examine the tenets we hold dear in society. In addition to sampling various ideologies and ways of life in hopes of finding the true and just path, Mill also advocates trust in reason and logic. People, he says, “should exercise their understandings, and [realize] that an intelligent following of custom, or even occasionally an intelligent deviation from custom, is better than a blind and simply mechanical adhesion to it” (Mill, 57). Individuals must be willing to follow where reason and study lead them, in spite of the potential consequences they might have to endure on account of society’s disapproval. The interpretation of experience through mature human rational faculties allows individuals to free themselves from society’s overweening influence and to progress as free-thinking beings. It is a citizen’s duty to be an active participant in society, a role which requires an individual to know and be able to justify not merely the nuances and intricacies of his own belief, but also the opinions of his opponents, so that he may arrive at the greatest good for society.
Mill attaches such great importance to individuality because it acts as the check on prevailing opinions and the effects of custom, which he sees as threats to individual liberty and self-realization. The vivifying influence of diversity frees the minds of individuals and allows them to be better educated and more valuable participants in society. Freed from the yoke of blind adhesion to a school of thought and a general state of mental apathy, the mind is allowed to flourish and to seek the just and the true. This is why, Mill asserts, citizens should be active and constantly strive to find the better option for their society. In this way, both the individual and the society benefit from the fruits of rational deduction and the careful reassessment of mores and ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment