Have some self-respect

 What's the value of a human life? When it concerns your own life, it literally means everything to you. Yet in the scope of a society or even smaller groups, the value of a singular human life diminishes quickly. As put succinctly many years ago, a single human death is a tragedy, a million human deaths is a statistic.

Does this mean that a human life only has value when regarded by itself? And what are the societal processes which seek to erase the individual?

One could argue that this process begins before the individual has even been born into this world. The first and most universal erasure event is that of gender. The presence or absence of specific reproductive organs (i.e. being male or female) precludes the newborn from being assigned specific designations ('name'), from wearing certain styles of clothing, as well as the colours thereof and the types of toys deemed appropriate.

This simple biological fact results in a specific gender role that seeks to erase the individual, leaving a 'boy' or a 'girl', instead of a 'child'. A child is a young individual who is still becoming their own person. A 'boy' or a 'girl' is a child whose identity as a child has been violated, since this designation results in harsh social responses and possibly punishment if they violate this involuntarily assigned gender role, i.e. the social role which is deemed appropriate for their biological sex.


The human brain is monomorphic, that is to say that there are no specific gradations or divisions that would allow them be divided into specific groups. As a consequence, one individual isn't necessarily better at specific mental tasks, nor are they likely to have stronger preferences in any direction. This precludes the possibility of statements such as 'girls are better at socialising', 'boys do not like pink colours' and 'girls are better at mathematics' to be true. The only way for these statements to be true, is if they are made to be true, i.e. through social conditioning of the individuals in question.

This social conditioning is a repeating pattern, which seeks to put all responsibilities at the feet of the individual, while only grudgingly admitting to the rights of an individual in society. An example of this is demonstrated in e.g. the system of Neo-Liberalism. Much like in the overarching systems of free-market capitalism and oligarchies, the purpose of the individual is not to be recognised and acknowledged as an individual, but rather to perform their duty to society.


Not unlike in the totalitarian regimes of Stalinism and Fascism, the highest good in Neo-Liberalism is the State. In societies based upon these systems, you are a good person if you are working a job that's for the betterment of the State. You are a bad person if you do not have a job, or seek to circumvent the Glory of the State. What the goals of the state are isn't relevant here. The State exists for its own sake, as a purpose onto itself. Something to be maintained and cherished, not unlike a theocracy.

Theocracies and religions in general are based around the very concept of the erasure of the individual. From providing very strict gender roles to prescribing all aspects of daily life, it is hard to consider a system in which the individual is more fully erased. in Neo-Liberalism, the same is true to a lesser extent. Even so, the erasure of the individual is essentially nearly as complete.


An interesting aspect to consider at this point is whether this erasure is the result of a wilful act. Here the answer is likely that it is an evolutionary artefact, from the days when humans lived in tribes. Inside a tribe, you either fit in or you are cast out. To be cast out of a tribe in those hunter-gatherer days meant almost certain death. Such a demand for absolute obedience is likely to have left its evolutionary traces, much as it has transformed the prideful, fiercely wild wolf into a creature for whom their master's wishes are all that matters.

How 'wild' are humans? Is individualism merely a faint dream that some of us hold in our hearts? Is the very concept of maintaining individualism in a society a foolish dream? Can the individual exist within a society?


Within the writings of e.g. Karl Marx (Socialism, Communism) and Ayn Rand (Objectivism) we can see a similar desire towards individualism, even if Ms Rand at no point would have admitted to hold Socialist ideas in her heart. Both of them grew up in an era and surroundings where the harsh exploitation of hapless humans was commonplace, whether it was under the shackles of the Industrial Revolution and the struggles leading up to it, or under the Red banner of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

They both held the belief that in a society the individual is of the utmost worth, as from individualism spring creativity and freedom. This is what led Ms Rand to her conviction that free-market capitalism was the ideal model, based on her experiences in the totalitarian Stalinism regime in the USSR. Despite this, she too admitted that there has to be oversight to ensure that these individual freedoms remain preserved.


In light of this, it is not hard to see today's Neo-Liberalist societies and kin as abject failures in this regard. While not as cruel as the unregulated days of the Industrial Revolution where a worker's life was worth something only for so long as they stayed in good health and could perform their job, these societies nevertheless focus on the exploitation of the individual.

From the strict adherence to gender roles and a refusal to acknowledge the individual, to the pressure for the individual to exploit themselves in what is called the 'job market' by making money the prerequisite for their continued existence. With all land inside a nation's border claimed by the State except where owned by more affluent individuals, an individual must adhere to the rules, if they wish to remain a part of a State. To be  rejected by the State would mean almost certain death.


What is the value of a human life? Does the individual merely exist to ensure the survival of the State? Does it matter what their dreams and desires are?


Truth to be told, I do not reckon that a violent overthrow of the 'ruling classes' is the answer here, nor do I see a clear, ideological path forward. To rid ourselves of tribalism first and foremost would be a step forward. That means ridding ourselves of superstitions and other burdens of the past. One thing which is absolutely an individualist trait is an adherence to science and reason, which is likely where we'll find the answers we seek.

The most pertinent question there is probably whether the average individual in society can be made to rely solely on their own faculties for reason, or whether the social conditioning that has led us to accept the erasure of the individual has to be first resolved.


Maya