|
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE 'I'
The emergence of the first-person
pronoun, the ‘I’,
Somewhere during the late eighties a paradigm shift
took place within the field of mass-communications. It was characterized
by the appearance of the first-person pronoun, the ‘I’, in the
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 subjective journalism was
the result of the existential-humanism swapping over Europe during the
mid-eighties. The underpinnings of this new ideology were based on the
assumption that human nature is inherently good and that the source of
our discontent and unhappiness must 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 we live in. If I am the spring of Utopia then
everything (culture, society, beliefs, etc.) outside of my
‘existentialist self’ must be lacking because I am not happy.
It was during this period that the west experienced a flowering in
attempts to reconstruct itself: the feminist movement, ecotopians,
believers in eastern ideologies, and so on, embarked on a radical
journey 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
within the social science communities. 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 get away
with being 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
mutilations in Liberia hardly raised an eyebrow. When the ‘other’ acts
immorally — like slaughtering thousands of farmers in Southern Africa —
then his or her actions are seen as mere misguided justice (i.e. the
whites deserved it!). This perversion of moral imperatives and the
sickening hypocrisy it engendered have caused untold misery and
suffering. Why are all adult white males seen as potential
child-abusers? It is simply because childhood is identified with
innocence and white males are 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 talkshows — 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. 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 psychiatric 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
childporn 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 maximum. Why don’t they all
just get life? Nobody can live a 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 realized/grasped the tremendous
source of income that children/youths represent. They are the only
market segment with truly disposable/fluid 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), boybands (shake- and-bake music), the coolest pair of
jeans 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 years 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 the 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 1500 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! Hogwash! I am definitely not
morally represented by those interests who deem it important to tell me
about David Beckham's latest hair style whilst 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
schoolkids 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 ‘I’s 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’.
Albert Brenner
19 November 2004
http://www.inquisition21.com/article31.html?e5505fac62a50304e194d602f4d6babd=d861b906c21dcd377c66bfac5cfff778
home /
Previous
viewpoint |
