Conform or be an Individual?

This has confused me and I know there has been discussion, sometimes acrimonious, about the merits of striving to be an individual over the easier route of just conforming. This is when the “best for the community” is put before the individual. Now in this regard I’m referring not just to religious conforming when “everyone” has to think and believe a certain way or be called an “apostate” or “heretic”. This, religious conformism, seems to be fading somewhat in the world today – certainly when it comes to Christianity. It used to be that everyone went to church at least once a week – now many churches are almost empty.  

What I’m thinking about is the “autocratic” type of conforming – Turkey, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, North Korea – even to a certain extent it now appears, in the USA. In these countries only government approved media is permitted and only government approved public expression of views is allowed. All else is “fake news”, or at least contrary to “approved” news and purveyors of such news may be jailed or at the very least may be “pilloried” by the authorities and in social media.

Many of us, certainly in my age group, will remember pictures of China under the autocratic rule of Chairman Mao, where everyone had to wear the regulation blue boiler-suit and carry the “Red Book” of his pronouncements and avoid, at all costs, being termed a counter revolutionary. And where “re-education camps” were widely used.

I’m wondering whether we actually need to conform as traditionally portrayed. We cannot all think and act the same. Humans are just not made that way. This is why I believe that Soviet Communism failed and why any autocratic regime will also ultimately fail. Trying to suppress an individual’s ideas and aspiration just builds up pressure and a great deal of stress. 

Yes, certainly, we humans are social beings. We need to have contact with other like-minded people. It’s just the way we are. This is why families have always been seen as vital to any society. But do I need a government to tell me how I should behave with “foreigners” or what and who to believe, or which social media is appropriate?

No! 

We have to be given the freedom to think and act for ourselves (within certain parameters of the law). The stress of conforming has its downside. For instance Japan, a highly “conformist” society, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. 

What we have to guard against is the prevalent but very old concept of the “scapegoat” – blame someone or some group for your own troubles. In Australia it’s the “boat people” or “illegal immigrants” invading our carefully guarded borders; in the USA it’s Mexican drug addicts and rapists invading the country; in (nominally) Christian countries in Europe it’s the Islamists wanting to impose Sharia law and upsetting the old traditions; in strict Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran it’s decadent Western ideas polluting the minds of the young – with such unseemly things as dancing, different sexes swimming together or even watching a football match. 

As the Nazi Hermann Goering warned at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (1946): “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

We all need to be very vigilant.

Our ego and us

We all know an Autocrat, the ‘controller’. We all know a person who is always right, who knows everything, who has an opinion on everything and who’s way of doing things is always the best and only way. But I wonder if such a person is ever at peace within him/her self? To be constantly aware of what others are doing – so that they may be corrected, because you are sure they will inevitably do something wrong – must be very tiring. It must wear the person down.

There will never be peace, anywhere, until people have ‘peaceful’ minds and ‘peaceful’ thoughts. How can it be otherwise? Peace will never eventuate from warlike and violent thoughts or actions. Look, I don’t just mean international peace. I include in this term peace from ALL violence – domestic, civil, social, sectarian and international and I would include in this our predilection to anger when crossed or thwarted. We are all of us guilty of this one at times.

I know that it would be naive to believe that there will ever be a time when everyone has ‘peaceful’ thoughts – it will never happen, the human condition being what it is. But why should we accept this deplorable state of affairs? Why SHOULD there be violence; why SHOULD there be so much anger? What is the purpose and what does it serve? So what if we are thwarted in our endeavours; so what if others don’t have the same goals in life as we do – why get angry or violent about it? I do not believe that there can ever be any ‘benefit’ from anger or from violence – that these two are a complete waste of time and energy, both of which would be better spent elsewhere.

Is it possible for most of us to have peaceful thoughts? I am sure it is.

It maybe that there is a ‘tipping point’ such that when the majority of people have ‘peaceful’ thoughts then there is more likely to be peace than otherwise (which is logical I suppose - and somewhat of a blinding glimpse of the obvious). So what does it say about the general thought content of the average person that there is so much violence and lack of ‘peace’ in the world? It would appear, that as a world, we are some distance away from that ‘tipping point’!!

Anger I believe arises from our egos. When our ego (our idea of who we are) tells us that it has been diminished in some way – that we have been shown up as a lesser person than our ego allows for – then anger may arise. A very typical example is road rage – say someone cuts in a queue of cars and immediately pushes us one vehicle further from the ‘feeder’ arrow at the intersection. Our immediate reaction is to think “Who does she think she is pushing in like that? I am just as important as she is – bloody female driver!” (Or whoever – I am NOT anti-female please believe me!). Anger arises and we activate the horn in no uncertain manner and also give the finger and generally show that we are extremely displeased.

Can you relate to this? But does it really matter? Maybe the woman is an unemployed single mother who has an urgent appointment to meet with a potential new employer – a reasonable enough excuse, don’t you think? But no! Our ego tells us that it has been diminished and slighted and that this slight must be redressed in some way. Less than charitable thoughts arise and anger and violence, that inevitably accompany such thoughts, always intervene and turn a tricky situation into a possibly violent one. All for what – just to please the ego?

In a perverse way lack of peace may be considered as a positive! Having an ‘unpeaceful’ mind may lead someone to re-appraise their perceptions and ideas which may lead to innovations in human relations or helping those less fortunate or in medicine or to innovations in any field of human endeavour.

There is always a positive to be found somewhere – even when the ego is involved!

More on Injustice

I have written before on this but I want to say some more about injustice. Injustice is a pervasive cancer and a blight on the lives of many and a major impediment to peace in the world. Wherever there is autocratic governance, wherever there is tyranny and terror, wherever there in uncertainty - whatever generates fear - there you will find injustice.

Why and for what?

It is all about “power”. It is all about the “prestige” that accompanies power, and of course it is all about ego. Power gives the impression that the powerful are “better”, are “different” from the rest of society and therefore “deserve” the panoply that goes with the power and the position.

But as the Romans said two thousand years ago “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. So power leads to corruption, which cascades down the line to injustice, to uncertainties and because no one knows what to expect next – this leads to fear. And fear gives the “powerful” a greater sense of their power which leads to more injustice, more fear and ultimately to terror and tyranny, in a fairly predictable sequence of events.

Those who are autocratic, those who terrorize and create an atmosphere of fear have the most to lose and they know it – think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and currently the Burmese Junta and Mugabe (just to name a few). States ruled by terror never last. Those in ‘control’ live increasingly isolated lives for fear that their own lives may be cut down in one way or another - the immutable law of cause and effect will always prevail – they will reap what they sowed. It has always been this way and can be no other. This is justice balancing out the injustice by taking out the instigators of the original injustice – even though it may take a significant period of time – justice will prevail.

The recent tragic events still unfolding in Iran are a case in point. The Iranian ‘Guardian Council’ is there, principally, to ensure that those in power remain there. It is also there to, presumably, keep the Islamic faith intact and pure. But who determines what ‘purity’ means? So to keep themselves safe and to maintain the faith this Guardian Council pays a militia (which is above the law) to kill, maim and create fear – all presumably in the name of God, of Allah the Merciful.

One can only wonder at the mentality of these people and despair.