The Individual Vs. Social Power
The Duality of Humans as Both Social Animals and Autonomous Agents
Human nature is a strange combination of unique traits. On one hand, we are pro-social, tribal animals whose survival relies on unified efforts and cooperation. Even when social organizations are developed around a strong element of competition, as in capitalist structures, the expected net effect of activity along these lines is expected to be collectively beneficial. Thanks to our proficient reasoning and organizational cognitive strengths, we have been generally successful in constructing lasting complex states and civilizations with population levels and degrees of complexity that far exceed the boundaries set by our purely natural social instincts. The result is a functioning collective that exponentiates the productive capacity of human activity while applying social mechanisms that mitigate or neutralize the detrimental effects of an otherwise intolerable asymmetry of power relations inherent in all large social organizations hitherto established. Perhaps the most potent of these tools is the application of a binding belief system that promotes a paradigm of unity that trivializes the concrete dysfunctions present in any given social order. These systems can be either religious or secular, as long as they satisfy their key function as a social adhesive. Indeed, the origin of the word, “religion” comes from the Latin term, Religio, meaning, “that which binds”.
This kind of collective dynamic is unique to the human species, and it is a driving force in the evolution of our social organizations. However, the unique awareness of humans as “individuals” comes into direct conflict with this strange herd-like behavior. We are self-aware animals capable of creative thought and critical analysis. From this perspective, the very idea of modifying one’s own outlook — drawn from the special modes of his/her thinking and unique to their position relative to the rest of the world — to conform to the contours of the rigid and prescriptive doctrines of any religion, philosophy, or ideology, would seem like a betrayal of oneself – a cessation of the mind’s stream of dynamic reasoning, a contemptible act of voluntary slavery.
It can be conceded that submission to prescriptive ideology does serve as at least the more comfortable path. Some people cannot think for themselves; far more are flat-out unwilling, or will not even dare, despite even the best efforts of honest educators to liberate their minds and teach them to think for themselves. For them, education in its lower form, that of indoctrination, must suffice. Judging by the ubiquity of faithful adherents to either theistic or secular ideologies, it seems fair to assume that most people fall into one of these categories. This is, unfortunately, why fools, bigots, and minions make up the mass of mankind on Earth.
This article is not for them.
Centralized and Decentralized Power Against the Individual
The autonomy of the individual, in mind, body, and will, is in incessant and perpetual conflict with the influence of every other element in human society. Institutions holding centralized power such as governments, established churches, and firms, exert their power through vectors like the media, arts, entertainment, and educational institutions, which directly assault the mind with volleys of interpretations, opinions, and outright propaganda.
On the other end of the spectrum, the decentralized nature of power and influence radiated from culture wages a more subtle and protracted campaign against the magnanimous independence inherent to the human mind. In fact, the values, morals, and mindsets of such things as family values, public religion, and ethnic axioms are at least equal to the potency of centralized power.
This is best exemplified in collegiate environments. The pronounced trend in leftward shifts in political outlooks among students is not, as some may contend, the result of academia’s clandestine plot to brainwash them into liberal automatons. Rather, it is due to the prolonged immersion in liberal/progressive/socialist milieus that typify university campuses in the United States. If staff or faculty are at all actively involved in the recalibration of the political leanings of the student body, it is because they themselves have been conditioned by their surrounding subculture to a radical degree. One should discount the presence of flyers and pamphlets around campuses promoting “liberal” values such as diversity, equity, and inclusion; marketing these values is a requirement for receiving Title X funds from the federal government.[1]
The Complementary Nature of the Two Forms of Power
Often at odds with each other on a macro-historical scale, these two manifestations of power share the common function of domesticating and subjugating the individual. Indeed, they are complementary manifestations of power. The authentic individual is never more in jeopardy than when centralized and decentralized powers work in perfect, suffocating, harmony.
Social power originates in a diffused and decentralized state. Decentralized power is nebulous and chaotic, woven into the fabric of society itself. It lacks the definition and stability inherent in examples of centralized power. Yet therein lays its power. Decentralized power exerts itself through subtle persistence that corrodes, rather than demolishes, individual resistance. Its effect is penetrating and thorough, and it is the maxims and mores instilled by cultural means that are the most engrained, resilient, and enduring. This is exemplified by the religious conditioning of children. In comparison to centralized social mechanisms, decentralized forms are both older and far more sophisticated. Centralized powers seem to be an adjunct to decentralized forms, rather than vice versa. This can manifest inwardly, like in the psychological repression of socially unacceptable opinions. An example of its outward effect might be conforming to P.C. etiquette.
On the other side of the coin, centralized power exists in clear and fixed form. It is the embodiment of order and explicit regulation. Ideally, it functions as a reflection and formalization of the cultural values and expectations reinforced by power in its decentralized form – a culmination of unified social power over the individual members of its whole. Its expressions of power are meant to be consistent and clearly defined – as is the allegiance of members of the society that it reigns over. Through means of legal statutes and formal delegation of authority among various organizations, the clandestine social pressures elicited by decentralized power structures are brought out into public purview, consolidated, and entrenched. Tacit submission is replaced with open and public affirmations of loyalty. Examples of this include reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools and the performance of religious sacraments in established churches.
Interactions Between these Two Forms
In eras of perfect harmony between these two opposed yet complementary forces, the individual is most thoroughly subdued. If the target will isn’t thoroughly neutralized by the pernicious effect of decentralized power it is compelled by the implicit force of centralized authority. These powerful and turbulent forces synthesize to act against the individual as a force of nature. Eras such as the 1950s in the ‘40s and ‘50s in the United States exemplify this, as it is commonly remembered as the most recent apex of social conformity and faith in government leadership.
However, decentralized and centralized power also cycle through periods of discord. As stated before, centralized power is a fixed expression of the character of decentralized power. However, it is poorly suited to change. In fact, such change is contrary to its nature, as it is meant to crystalize and preserve the social maxims of the era that produced it. In effect, its image is like a mere snapshot of a moment in time, in which the landscape it once captures changes until it is beyond recognition. The picture, in relation, fades in time in both vibrance and clarity. As a result, political structure often lags so much that the ensuing dysfunction precipitates punctuated and violent action. The French Revolution provides a perfect example where the rift between centralized and decentralized power structures exceeded the bounds of reconciliation and led to bloody conflict. In this case, the anachronistic political structure was abolished and replaced with one that better reflected the present spirit of the social order.
In other cases, the political apparatus can become hyper-zealous and assert itself directly against the cultural beliefs of the people it serves. This is exemplified by the revolutionary era in British North America, where the British Empire repeatedly asserted dominance over its colonial subjects far beyond the culturally accepted boundaries of its American subjects. The colonists, accustomed to local governance, economic freedom, and the enjoyment of first-rate civil liberties, in turn, took up arms, overthrew their imperial overlords, and established a government better suited to their character and interests.
Lastly, some eras teeter on the precipice of anarchy, where both the incumbent political structures and cultural pressures are attenuated. This is, perhaps, the greatest of opportunities for individual flourishing. One era that comes to mind is the Italian Renaissance. The influx of Greek and Roman classical literature into Italy following the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 infused the declining feudal structure of Western Europe with new life. These works triggered the shift of the European worldview from a medieval outlook to a modern one. It had a momentous impact on art and ideology and a smaller and more indirect impact on scientific advances.[2]
The fragmented and destabilized state of Italian politics effectively hamstrung any possible chance for centralized power structures to crack down on any disorder in the ranks. Instead, they more often embraced them, along with the moral flexibility afforded by relaxed social controls. The weakened state of the Papacy and the rising importance of city-states in opposition to the old feudal order created a power vacuum that allowed for greater latitude in creative ventures. The Papacy grew derelict in religious matters. It took on a rather secular role during this time, acting as more of a patron of the arts than a religious authority. This ultimately undermined the basis of its authority and helped provoke the Reformation. Furthermore, Italian secular politics at the time was an arena of ruthless competition bereft of moral temperance. British Philosopher Bertrand Russell noted that the moral depravity found in the political philosophy laid out in Machiavelli’s The Prince was not a shocking departure from political custom, but rather a reflection of it.[3]
Not surprisingly, then, the Renaissance is marked by a flourishing of art and philosophy. More importantly, it stripped religion of its monopolistic authority on truth and morality, which laid the groundwork for the modern age. It is eras like the Renaissance that offer the best opportunities for the renewal of culture and the self-actualization of the individual.
Conclusion
The very history of human civilization, then, is driven by a process of fluctuating power relations. For individuals intent on maximizing their own power within this context, it is essential to know how to navigate their way through it. This means learning how to identify and understand the forms of centralized and decentralized power that permeate society, their essential properties, and their trending degrees of force. If fluent in this respect, one can effectively identify opportunities even in times of crushing rigidity or rampant chaos. Is your society immersed in a semi-petrified state of stifling conformity? Is the tension between social power relations so strained that you may find yourself in the advent of an incoming revolution? Or have you noticed a welcome attenuation of these forces that opens the door to a new Renaissance?
I look forward to discussing my own evaluation of our current times along these metrics in a future article. For now, though, I would like to suspend my own analysis. I leave the floor to you, readers, to make your own evaluations. I hope that this can allow for the development of a constructive dialectic leading to a better understanding of the reality of our times and what it means for those who would rather assert their individuality than reduce themselves to a mere cog in the gears of our social machinery.
[1] It is conceded that the promotion of these values is likely met with little resistance among university staff and faculty. However, they are simply supporters of this policy, not its architects.
[2] https://www.britannica.com/event/Renaissance