Home | Philosophy | General

The Dictatorship of the 'I'
By: Albert Brenner

Somewhere during the late eighties a paradigm shift took place within the field of mass-communication. It was characterized by the warped appearance of the first-person pronoun, the 'I', in mainstream newspapers. Instead of a headline like 'Man assaults wife' this shift in perspective prompted journalists to pen a headline like 'I saw Daddy hitting Mommy'.

This regression into subjectivism was the result of the existential-humanism swapping over Europe during the mid-eighties.

The underpinning of this new ideology was based on the assumption that human nature is inherently good and that the source of our discontent and unhappiness must therefore reside 'outside' the individual human being. The logic of this idea — engendered by the disillusionment of the 'Make love not War' generation — is quite uncanny; if my nature is inherently cherubic, but I'm still unhappy, then the fault must be with the society that I live in. To put it more succinctly; if I am the spring of Utopia then everything (culture, society, beliefs, etc.) outside my inherently good 'existentialist self' must be lacking because I am not happy.

It was during this period that the West experienced a flowering of attempts to reconstruct itself; the feminist movement lost its way, ecotopians, believers in eastern ideologies, and so on, embarked on radical journeys to reshape Western societies. This resulted in political-correctness, alternative lifestyles, radical liberal values and the criminalization of the, hitherto, supporters of the old establishment, such as the Caucasian male. Concepts like the 'same' (Western males) and the 'other' (women, non-whites, homosexuals, etc.) became fashionable in liberal social science circles. The champions of the 'old way' were stereotyped as being racist, homophobic, perverse, predatory, chauvinist and anachronistic.

This stereotype has infused our psyche. For example, if a mature white male sees a child that has been separated from his/her parents at a playground/fair, he would be acting very unwisely if he tries to help because once he gets to close to the child he would be suspected of being a pedophile. A man of Asian origin would be praised as a friendly tourist with a big heart.

This also applies to moral sanctioning. White South Africans and Serbs experienced worldwide condemnation, but the genocide in Rwanda and the horrific mutilations in Liberia hardly raised an eyebrow. When the 'other' acts immorally--like slaughtering thousands of white farmers in South Africa--then his or her actions are seen as mere misguided justice (i.e. the whites, who stole our innocence, deserved it!). This perversion of moral imperatives and the sickening hypocrisy it engendered have caused untold misery and suffering.

Why have all adult white males suddenly become potential child-abusers? It is simply because childhood is identified with innocence and the 'loss' thereof associated with sex. Mix the two and you have the formula to blame pale males for all 'the loss of innocence' the 'other' has experienced on their way to Utopia. White males are therefore seen as the 'enemy at the gates' of the beleaguered innocent and inherently cherubic existentialist self, the 'I'.

Utopia has been found! It is the abode of the 'I'. This 'I', followed by its unbridled emotionalism, has entered the public domain with a vengeance. It is why we say 'Chairperson' and not 'Chairman', it is why we have talk shows — the emotional voyeurism of the plebian confession; a tribunal of the plebiscite where the 'I' can find solace and redemption in front of its peers. Oprah is the Pope of the cult of the 'I'. It is why pedophiles, murderers and other criminals find extreme leniency in the criminal system when they say/claim that they have been abused as children. They are referred to psychological treatment to reconnect with the 'I'.

The 'I' looks after its own. It can sway public opinion; a politician arrested for corruption will find sympathy when the headline reads 'I made a mistake' instead of 'Politician arrested for corruption'. It provides a sanctum for all the adherents of the sanctification of the 'child within'. The 'I' has entered into an unholy alliance with the lawmakers and money mongers of this world.

A German man who was found guilty of running a child-porn ring was sentenced to a 1000-year prison term. For murder you get 15 years. A corrupt CEO who defrauds his company and wastes the life savings of thousands of his workers gets 5 years max. Why don't they all just get life without parole (or get strung up by their bullocks)? Nobody can live 1000 years!

Where does this overreaction come from? The 'I' looks after its own; persons hurting it face the wrath of the money mongers who have realized/grasped the tremendous source of income that children/youths represent. They are the only market segment with truly disposable incomes because their tastes, habits and needs (dictated by peer pressure) can be manipulated ad infinitum. They will always fall for the latest trends, be it clothes (soccer shirts), boy bands (shake-and-bake music), the coolest pair of sneakers worn by their peers, and so on.

Middle-aged couples have fixed tastes, needs, and obligations such as mortgages. They cannot be suckered so easily, and that's why no CEO will get a 1000-year prison term for stealing their life-savings. The murder of a few adults will not shake the system either. It's only when the 'I' is threatened that all hell breaks loose and the witch hunters are given free reign. The decision-makers of this world who are suspected of not following the dictates of the 'I' can appease it by, for example, attending every birthday party of Mandela (to bask in the light of non-racialism), forcing the judiciary to hand out 10,000,000-year sentences to pedophiles and to incarcerate every parent who physically chastised their child for riding skateboard on their neighbor's car.

Be that as may; let us return to our examination of the 'I'. What is the true nature of this elusive 'I'? It is, amongst others, an aggregate of genetic imperatives, short to medium-term wishes and obligations, a culturally specific socialization process, socio-cultural behavior patterns, habits, and aesthetic preferences, character traits, theological beliefs and that fantastic open-endedness which characterizes our existence in via.

This is the 'I' that our esteemed writers are claiming to represent when they write 'I'm always hungry', instead of 'Obesity on the increase'. I am definitely not morally represented by those interests who deem it important to tell me about David Beckham's latest hair style while all but ignoring the plight of millions of undernourished children in Africa. The continued sanctification of the 'I' will only lead to further exploitation and irrational emotionalism. We will have to continue feeding unruly school kids Ritalin to calm them down, because they may not be disciplined anymore. Adults will have to continue taking Prozac because of the stress caused by all the cherubic 'Is' out there.

There is light at the end of the tunnel however. When the 'I' generation has grown up and succumbed to the harsh realities of life then they can take Viagra to temporarily revert back to that state (Utopian bliss) which was denied to them while living their illusion and swallowing quick solution tablets. Alas, the sad ending of a generation that thought it could reincarnate the 'child within'.

Article Source: http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com

Please Rate this Article

 

# of Ratings = 1 | Rating = 5/5

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive General Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From - Home | Philosophy | General
Sign Up as an Author.
Submit Articles
Member Login
Top Authors
Most Popular Articles
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
New Stuff
Forum
Link to Us
Contact Us

Powered by Article Dashboard