So, by definition, 'society' is a product of a collective consciousness that exists only inside the mind of human beings, which exerts its physical existence and influence via a default collective recognition of said consciousness's authority over the individual. Even those that claim themselves to be 'rebels' or 'revolutionaries' find themselves under much mental duress in attempting to resist the overwhelming scope of influence that any given society exerts on the external world, and any rebellious individual will find themselves being forced to contradict themselves from time to time in order to counter said influence, otherwise they risk losing their mind to what they see as a depressing conformity (depending on what society it just so happens to be).
Society is, by its very definition, one very large illusion that plays into the minds of every living and breathing human being during every second of every minutes of every single day, regardless of whether it is desired or not. But does its being an illusion make it, also, a deception?
Not necessarily, no. But due to its very nature as an illusion, the addition or subtraction of its key ideals is not only a usual occurrence (at least in the developed world), it is almost expected, in some sense.
During the many heyday's of the Roman Empire, democracy was ousted, re-instated, ousted, and re-instated, and ousted and reinstated almost in a continual cycle. If a society was truly consistent in its existence, than either one or the other should have stuck with the Empire for the duration of its reign over a large chunk of Eurasia... but humans do not work in any consistent manner for very long, so neither does the endless cycle of oppression and liberation.
One might see 'oppression' and 'liberation' as a weighing of good versus evil, and in the sense that 'oppression' is defined as "the act of subjugating by cruelty," such a black-and-white view of the words definition being attributed to the entire reality of what did indeed occur historically would be well-placed; but the truth is much wider and more diverse than the word may suggest.
Yes, the 'act of subjugating by cruelty' seems an obvious breach of morally acceptable conduct, but why is it that cruelty cannot be ruled out as necessary at times? Sure, some oppressive rulers or styles of government have only maintained power for the sake of power itself, but others have taken power and maintained it by reason of assisting what they see as the 'greater good,' whether for benefit of their ethnicity, creed, religion, ideology, country, or even the world, they were sure they were doing what was right.
Now, what sort of deceptive illusions could drive these oppressive agents of change to act against things like democracy? Pure misinterpretation? Maybe; but like the rest of society, it was a misinterpretation that was widely shared, or was at least successfully imposed during the process of further oppression.
And who is to say one cannot be oppressed by pleasure and distraction? Wouldn't deliberately attempting to avert your attention away from the reality of what may be occurring within a given society be 'subjugating by act of cruelty' in the sense that they simply want you to look in the other direction as so they can get away with that they're fully aware is not socially acceptable, or wish to condition you to the point where it either comes to look like or becomes socially acceptable? I would certainly say so; although, to be honest, I would prefer the latter over the former.
The idea of what is 'obviously' right or wrong also plays into our views on society. Is 'liberation' an entirely good thing? Maybe I used the wrong word in 'liberation,' as its definition is not so broad; or perhaps is, in some sense, much broader than the alternative words I could have used, being defined as "the act of liberating someone or something ." But from what?
People see it as such a positive word, yet it can be just as negative as 'oppression,' or even be used alongside 'oppression' under the proper circumstances. For example: it is technically true that the Nazi's, during the Second World War, liberated the Dutch from the Dutch, and the Belgians from the Belgians, and placed them under the oppressive rule of Germany.
Despite how self-contradicting that sentence may be, it is true. The Germans did indeed liberate the Dutch and Belgians from themselves, did they not? But in doing so, they had to oppress them. In the same way, in the endless cycle of oppression and liberation, the Romans, many times over, liberated themselves from themselves. This went both ways, however.
When an oppressive Emperor abolished the senate and set-up and totalitarian style of government, he was, in a sense, liberating the Roman people from the Roman people; and when the Roman people decided to revolt and remove said Emperor from office, they too were liberating the Roman people from the Roman people.
Perhaps I am generalizing, but I am proving something in showing how the use of language dictates everything. I could have portrayed it all as positive or negative, and perhaps caused you to walk away with a positive or negative view on any of the above; but I decided to take the middle-ground by making use of self-contradiction, and using the technicalities in definition and meaning to make my point clear or cloudy. In this way, have I not made a point about society? All it is, is an interpretation. You do, indeed, delude yourself in saying it exists, but you would also be deluding yourself in saying it doesn't.
There is no such thing as a 'universal truth.'
No comments:
Post a Comment