Existentialism vs. Globalization
In the face of modern globalization, existential individualism is threatened, as the one becomes assimilated into the many. In the movement towards a world bureaucracy, the idea seems to be that no one is important, only the general masses. The individual self is placed at risk of being lost in “the they”, as Jean-Paul Sarte or Martin Heidegger would call it. This movement has many fronts, and thus can be examined from multiple perspectives. First, let us consider the political angle, where big business is competing with government, conservatives and liberals serving as their advocates, respectively. Liberals, most often Democrats, push for larger government with more control. In theory, big government will be better equipped to aid the people it represents. Conservatives, most often Republicans, push for smaller government with less control, i.e. delegating power more widely or “returning power to the people”.
There are problems with both of these ideologies. The idea that larger government will better serve its people is entirely dependent on those people actively participating in that government. Unfortunately, as apathy increases, government no longer truly represents the people as a whole. Usually, this translates into representation for the wealthy and well-educated minority. Even the Democrats then must cater to these interests, as it is the basis for their power. On the other hand, while smaller government implies more power for the people, the ability to use that power requires knowledge. It also requires the actual inclination of the people to use that power. Again this implies greater representation for the wealthy and well-educated. Perhaps more significant is the new form of control that slips in through the backdoor of the conservative agenda – that of big business.
This modern situation is comparable to France in 1943, when Jean-Paul Sartre released his play “The Flies” as an allegory of resistance to German occupation. At the time, writers could not publish anything that explicitly criticized the Nazi regime, or that suggested any rebellion against it. Sartre, who became affiliated with the resistance movement, was quite critical of the French government, which practically collaborated with the Nazis through acquiescence, and the people who simply “allowed” the invaders to rule over them. Indeed one could say that the average person was helpless, that the French would’ve stood no chance in blatant opposition to the occupation. Sartre disagreed with that very concept of “helplessness”, believing that it was up to the people to take responsibility for their situation, even at the expense of their lives.
The people of 1943 France and their dilemma in World War II are analogous to today’s subjects of globalization and the invisible war in which big business is firmly entrenched in its battle with government. In general, the corporate goal is one of total consumer dependency. Clothes, food, private healthcare, entertainment – all the things people need – could simply be purchased. Why do anything for yourself when big business is there to lend a helping hand? Is this any different than “Big Brother”, i.e. large government, taking all responsibility? Both are inauthentic, because neither tends to represent the interests of the people, who sit complacently within one system of control or another rather than taking action for themselves, and being self-sufficient. The situation creates a rather formidable catch-22, in that dependency yields complacency, complacency leads to apathy, and apathy sustains the system of control that advocates dependency. The existentialist point of view, in staunch opposition, demands that one take control of and responsibility for their own lives.
Next let’s look at things from a social perspective. It seems common in the west, and increasingly throughout other regions of the world, that image is to be prioritized above substance. People’s value seems to be based on their purchasing power, as material wealth is reflected through image. This aligns with the aforementioned corporate objective as well; it does not take much deduction to come to the conclusion that a person has more value to a corporation if they can spend more. This idea has political ramifications as well; as mentioned earlier, those with money tend to be better represented.
However, this is a fallacy – inauthenticity in one of its ugliest incarnations. A person is not defined by the sum of their wealth and material possessions. A person’s value cannot be quantified. This insidious notion of image over substance is prevalent in western pop culture, which through its enviable fidelity as a meme-complex, has spread like wildfire, and become a medium for globalization. For example, many young people in Japan are obsessed with western culture, be it the music, the clothing styles, the associated attitudes, or even the language. There is also a biting irony in the fact that people in destitute countries can be seen wearing big name American brands, indicative of the corporate leash having a farther reach than the helping hand. The assimilation of western culture most often leads to displacement rather than blending, and through globalization, a homogenization is occurring. The movement is towards one worldwide monoculture, dominated by western ideology.
Why is this a bad thing, if it implies a sense of unification? It is bad because it suggests a growing worldwide trend of inauthenticity. To further examine this point, let’s take a closer look at some aspects of western culture, again noticing the emphasis on image over substance. On a certain website, I discovered the way in which a person can become “Emo”. Emo is a type of music with roots in punk, rock, and alternative styles, which seems to highlight a sense of grief or anguish, usually with regards to [the failure of] romantic relationships. From the music arose a “lifestyle”. According to the site, there is a set of criteria one must follow if they are to be “truly emo”. These include:
* Dyed black short hair with a very specific style
* Body piercings and jewelry – “the more the better”
* Horn-rim or thick black framed glasses
* Tight faded shirts meant to look as though they were bought in a thrift store
* Tight pants – “sometimes cuffed once or twice but never more”
* Black or blue Converse shoes
The specificity of these criteria is alarming. It seems that people have no sense of individuality, and as a result seek to validate themselves through their ability to be categorized – on the basis of physical appearance, no less. It is not enough to simply share an interest in music; one must identify with the very “lifestyle” associated with it in order to be accepted as genuine. All of this plays right into the hands of corporate control, as subscription to “the they” creates new markets. Another quote from the same site states: “If you are not skinny, you have to lose weight before you can officially be emo.” One can just imagine the kind of self-esteem issues this kind of ideology induces – in young women in particular – as image becomes the yardstick for measuring self- worth. This isn’t exclusive to one “lifestyle” or another, but seems to be the view highlighted by mainstream media.
Simone de Beauvoir, an existentialist author and pupil of Jean-Paul Sarte, wrote about how women in the 1950s needed to claim their own identity, apart from the contexts of their relationships to men and their designated “role” in society. Today, it seems that is not as much of an issue as is it that a woman claim a distinct identity vs. the mainstream-defined “ideal”. As another example, consider the fact that in no television commercial for GAP, Inc. will you see an overweight person, nor is there one to be found anywhere on the corporation’s official website. Even the pregnant women somehow all maintain their figures, discounting of course their enlarged stomachs. In a particularly absurd display, GAP.com once even used fake models, ones that defy the human anatomy, to showcase certain maternity products – and all to sustain that “ideal” image.
(Author’s Note: Sometime after the original writing of this article, the fake models were replaced with idealized real models)
These days, “the they” takes many forms, appearing wherever there is a market. On the flip side of the mainstream “GAP” image, there is the counter-establishment image as seen in the fashions of stores like “Hot Topic”. Their motif seems to be setting the mainstream image as a benchmark, then rebelling against it as vehemently as possible. While I can respect the desire to be “unique”, as it insinuates authenticity, the truth is that people are only trying to be “different”, by creating one standard in opposition to another. Mainstream and counter-establishment are equally inauthentic in that they aim to group and categorize people through common image, in effect suppressing the identity of the individual. Sartre and de Beauvoir must be rolling in their graves. Meanwhile, the business entities all aim to sustain this bureaucracy, because as long as it creates a stable market, who cares about the individual?
Just so I make myself clear, this essay is not about “fighting the power”, nor is it meant to be leftist anti-corporate propaganda. For that reason I will also cite examples of how globalization, and through it the proliferation of the western mindset, may allow for existential freedom. There are many other cultures, where people do not have the luxury of being able to concern themselves with image. In third world societies in particular, a person may simply “be”. They do not have the freedom to “reinvent” themselves, or to transcend the context of mere survival. Where government oppression is the norm, ideals such as freedom of speech and religion are nonexistent. As speech is overt thought, the inability to speak freely may cultivate the disinclination to think freely. How, then, does the one stand distinct amongst the many, if they lack the awareness that they even exist as such?
In this way, communism (as an example) does not lend itself to freedom anymore than capitalism. Communism emphasizes equality, but by way of the idea that all people are the same, i.e. part of one giant puddle of miscellany. Since communism usually runs hand in hand with some form of extreme governmental control, people only know themselves within the context of “the they” as defined by regulation. If through globalization, the western ideals can be adopted by those who have never known such freedom, then that is one positive aspect. However, while western capitalism does suggest freedom, and indeed stresses the idea that life is what one makes of it, it is all for nothing if a person fails to recognize their freedom and yields it to a different form of control. After all, the capitalist bureaucracy is quick to take that same people-soup, and run it through a strainer, to sift out those who “don’t matter” , i.e. those who have no bearing due to their apathetic political non- participation or lack of purchasing power.
In conclusion, it must be said that every person has a right and a duty to exercise their existential freedom, as it is one of the greatest things about being human. I am not so pretentious as to believe this essay will have any lasting impact on anyone, or influence people’s way of thinking at large. If I could convey one message to everyone, however, it would simply be for them to be aware, think for themselves, take responsibility for their lives through action, and above all to matter…