Identity fragmentation in an insecure world

Benkei

In recent decades, media, including movies, series, and magazines, have driven unattainable archetypes of masculinity and femininity. These ideals have only become more extreme with the advent of social media and the rise of influencers. We’re bombarded by hyper-masculine, chiseled, stoic men juxtaposed against ethereal, slender, perpetually flawless women. Adding to this are stereotypes of queer identities: the fast-talking, smart but overly masculine gay men or the dungaree-wearing, short-haired lesbians (the latter being the only group seemingly “allowed” to deviate from conventional attractiveness). These depictions create a hyperreal framework, one completely detached from actual human experience, yet they are omnipresent and prescriptive, shaping social norms and rippling far beyond personal identity.

I suspect, without claiming to be an expert, that this is contributing to two detrimental societal effects.

We live in a world increasingly defined by individualism, where traditional societal units such as family, community, and religion have significantly weakened. This vacuum leaves people seeking identity and validation in narrower, more fragmented categories: gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or other micro-identities. While individualism seduces us with promises of freedom and self-definition, it often breeds insecurity in a world stripped of clear anchors.

This insecurity is compounded by an inability to conform to the extreme physical and behavioral ideals that modern culture holds up. The result? Alienation from one’s own identity. Traditional gender norms are questioned, leading to the emergence of alternative roles and identities. Asa result, limitations emerged: You can’t just be a tomboy and still be considered a girl. You can’t be effeminate and still be seen as a man. Above all, you must not be ugly. For the vast majority of people, these ideals are impossible to achieve.

As mainstream stereotypes become narrower, so do the alternative categories that arise to challenge them. LGBTQIA+ identities, for instance, have expanded to include more and more letters, each reflecting a specific experience or distinction. But why must a bisexual man need a separate category? Why must we continually subdivide? This hyper-fragmentation suggests not a celebration of diversity but an inability to communicate across divides or truly respect individuality.

At its core, this fragmentation doesn’t erase the fundamental human need for belonging—it amplifies it. In response, we see the rise of tight-knit communities: gay enclaves, the “incel” movement, the manosphere, the femosphere, and so on.

The insecurity bred by identity fragmentation also fuels a retreat into conservative gender roles and values. Movements like the “manosphere” and “femosphere” offer a seductive promise: escape the chaos of modernity by embracing the clarity and stability of traditional roles. Yet even these spaces are shaped by the individualist, capitalist ethos of “winning” and “conquering,” now reframed in terms of gender dynamics.

The manosphere reacts to women’s increasing independence and evolving expectations. For some, it’s as crude as rejecting the idea that men should play any role beyond financial provider. For others, it’s a more sophisticated critique: “How dare women expect equal partnerships at home?” The manosphere glorifies a revival of traditional masculinity, framing it as an antidote to unachievable standards and societal pressures. Its rallying cries often center on themes like respect, authority, and control, casting men as the ultimate gatekeepers of relationships.

On the other hand, the femosphere responds to the dual burden women face: being responsible for both productive (workplace) and reproductive (domestic) tasks. Many women feel that equality in the workplace has not been matched by equality at home. This frustration fuels a conservative reaction: reclaiming traditional roles centered around domesticity, financial dependence on men, and the nostalgic ideal of femininity. The “modern girlboss” archetype is rejected in favor of a more traditional identity.

For both spheres, conservatism isn’t just nostalgia for the past: it’s a reaction to the insecurity fostered by hyper-individualism and identity fragmentation. These frameworks offer a sense of purpose and belonging that feels increasingly elusive in today’s fragmented world.

Both identity fragmentation and the retreat into conservatism stem from the same sources: the unattainability of hyperreal gender constructs and the insecurity bred by individualism. Media-fueled ideals distort human experience, alienating individuals from themselves and their communities.

For some, the solution is to dismantle traditional categories entirely, embracing fluidity and rejecting labels. For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. Yet neither path fully resolves the underlying problem, as both are reactions to a distorted reality.

Hyperreal ideals don’t just fragment identities, they also bolster the allure of traditionalism as a coping mechanism. This dual phenomenon underscores the complexity of navigating gender and identity in the modern era.

I wanted to say more about the destabilising and insecurity caused by individualism but... it didn't reach the end of my fingers. But ok, maybe in subsequent posts.

So, what do you think? A fever dream of mine, or do you recognize something similar happening in our world?

Tzeentch

A small nitpick; individualism inherently is about the relation between states and citizens. In my view, the type of problems in the OP have more to do with a cultural trend of extreme liberalism, perhaps even nihilism, and the resulting atomization.

The problems named are of course very recognizable.

In the western world, cultural values and a sense of shared history have been under attack for decades. Despite all the criticism no replacement for this has been offered (and all attempts at constructing an artificial sense of common identity have historically failed).

So people young and old are left to figure things out on their own, and predictably they will do so via the internet, which is a problematic medium for various reasons.

Nowhere does the echo chamber effect appear to be so great as on the internet, and as such it has a tendency to amplify trends on an individual and societal level. Moreover, age groups are largely seperated (with older generations not even using the internet), meaning the younger generations grow up without the guidance of older generations.

Young people grow up feeling confused, resentful and isolated, carrying teenage themes into adulthood for which they were offered no solutions. It's all quite understandable, but understanding and wisdom are sparse on the internet, so instead you see all kinds of equally dysfunctional counter-reactions.

The fact that people are starting to make all sorts of strange leaps in attempts to break out of this situation I view only as a symptom of the deeper problem which is a trend of cultural repression, which has clear precedents in history. The communist episodes in the Soviet Union and Maoist China left entire generations lost, and both Russia and China are putting efforts into restoring their links to the past.

At any rate, I don't think any of it is spontaneous. The destruction of culture historically has had the purpose of either pacifying unruly populations (for example repression of Hungarian culture in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and/or forging a wider sense of unity by destroying subcultures (various communist regimes).

In my view, this isn't a natural human trend, nor is it healthy.

Joshs

↪Benkei

As mainstream stereotypes become narrower, so do the alternative categories that arise to challenge them. LGBTQIA+ identities, for instance, have expanded to include more and more letters, each reflecting a specific experience or distinction. But why must a bisexual man need a separate category? Why must we continually subdivide? This hyper-fragmentation suggests not a celebration of diversity but an inability to communicate across divides or truly respect individuality.

At its core, this fragmentation doesn’t erase the fundamental human need for belonging—it amplifies it. In response, we see the rise of tight-knit communities: gay enclaves, the “incel” movement, the manosphere, the femosphere, and so on. — Benkei

You don’t think one important reason for the rise of categories of gender identity is that individuals found themselves rejected and ostracized over their behavior, which in many cases they had no control over? A feminine-acting gay male could be the target of bullies, and their partnership with another male not legally recognized. A tight-knit gay community was necessary as long as gays felt unsafe in mainstream society. Now that mainstream attitudes have changed these ‘gay ghettos’ are fading as their residents integrate back into the wider community, while maintaining their gay identity. And with further liberalization in attitudes toward non-conforming gender behaviors among the general population, the relevance of the concept of gay identity will likely diminish. Thus we can see how the creation of identitarian communities can serve a vital, if temporary purpose.

Leontiskos

While individualism seduces us with promises of freedom and self-definition, it often breeds insecurity in a world stripped of clear anchors. — Benkei

Yep, there is a feedback loop between individualism and isolation. I think you are right that gender is at the core of it, but things like class and race are also highly relevant, and religion is also at play in the background. In my opinion democracy itself is a great leveler that tends to drive envy and self-assertion as well as group-assertion, and this is exacerbated in a faceless internet age where all news is national or global news, and therefore the possibility of being recognized has largely disappeared (because local communities and local spotlights have disappeared). This shift towards globalism and virtual realities creates lacunae of natural communities at smaller, more realistic locales.

Good OP. :up:

Leontiskos

A small nitpick; individualism inherently is about the relation between states and citizens. In my view, the type of problems in the OP have more to do with a cultural trend of extreme liberalism, perhaps even nihilism, and the resulting atomization. — Tzeentch

I would say that individualism is related to liberalism and nihilism, and is also not merely about the relation between states and citizens. In fact the individualism flowing from liberalism originally had to do with religion, not states, and the state then was made to soak up the social capital abandoned by religion.

People will tend to see themselves as individuals vis-a-vis the state, but also vis-a-vis religion, race, class, sex, geographic locale, and even sexual preference/orientation. In fact when people in the West speak metaphorically and pejoratively about an identity being "religious" or "cultish," what they mean is that it is oppressive to individualism. There is much value placed in the uniqueness and originality of the individual, and yet this comes up short against the fact that we are mere numbers or statistics in a sociological and programmatic world. So there is an attempt to "unionize" the uniqueness in the form of minority lobbying, especially if the minority can be construed as oppressed. The desired recognition is more attainable in this collective/unionized form.

Jack Cummins

↪Benkei

I think that your outpost is a very good critique of what is happening in the world, especially in relation to gender, but 'cultural wars' in general. It does involve aspects of race as @Leontiskos mentions. It also involves the nature of individualism in terms of personal identity, especially in a world fragmented by cultural relativism and movement into the digital age, of online images and identities.

With regard to gender, often the issue of transgender is looked at as the 'problem' of the individual who experiences gender identity issues. This misses the way in which identity is constructed socially. Feelings, thoughts and the development identity involves so much on an intersubjective level, is influenced by cultural ideas, such as the media, modernism and postmodernism as well as science.

The fragmented nature of identity construction is also affected by the way in which people's lives are experienced. Rather than the emphasis on individualism, there is a tendency in the digital age for people to be regarded as mere numbers amidst the 'mass' of humans, especially when they are expected to compete with machines and artificial intelligence. The fragmentation can be linked to a loss of appreciation of the uniqueness of the person, as well as so much emphasis on bodies and appearance in the media.

Tzeentch

People will tend to see themselves as individuals vis-a-vis the state, but also vis-a-vis religion, race, class, sex, geographic locale, and even sexual preference/orientation. — Leontiskos

The first part is individualism, the second is liberalism.

Tom Storm

↪Joshs

:up:

unenlightened

These ideals have only become more extreme with the advent of social media and the rise of influencers. — Benkei

Are you sure? My own memory is that gender stereotypes were much more rigid back in the fifties. My mother was forced to give up work (in a bank) on marriage as a 'natural' policy and custom. The hippie men growing their hair was seriously transgressive in the sixties.
Indeed gender stereotypes go back to Samson and Heracles, at least. It seems to me that these identities are being questioned and resisted by modernity rather than exaggerated.

Tom Storm

In recent decades, media, including movies, series, and magazines, have driven unattainable archetypes of masculinity and femininity. — Benkei

Hasn't this been the case for at least a century? The primary difference being how those 'archetypes' are distributed to target audiences?

We live in a world increasingly defined by individualism, where traditional societal units such as family, community, and religion have significantly weakened. This vacuum leaves people seeking identity and validation in narrower, more fragmented categories: gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or other micro-identities. While individualism seduces us with promises of freedom and self-definition, it often breeds insecurity in a world stripped of clear anchors. — Benkei

I don't know about vacuums. Isn't another way to frame this that there are just a lot more possibilities and more ways to be mainstream today? I doubt that community or family or religion are much weaker today than they were 40-50 years ago. They've been in transition a long, long time. If anything, back in the late 70's we thought religion would be gone from society by now and, if anything, it seems to be having a revival.

Community and family? Traditional forms may well have atrophied but other forms have developed - same sex parent families, for instance. I see a lot of additional inclusion in the country I live in - input from First Nations people, lived experience informing social policy in the areas of migrant communities, homelessness, mental illness, etc. There seem to be as many improvements as disappointments.

Hanover

So, what do you think? A fever dream of mine, or do you recognize something similar happening in our world? — Benkei

For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. — Benkei

I generally agree with the observation that modern society's embracing of non-traditional values has led to general alienation and lack of direction.

The part I might disagree is in your phrasing of the second quote above, as if traditional value systems offer a safe harbor of retreat, to suggest their value is simply pragamatic, a quiet space in the corner away from the noise. I'd suggest the comfort derived from them is not simply that they happen to work because of their stricter standards and their clear offers of direction, but it's because they are true. It's not as if any standard will do as long as we have a standard, but it's that we have a correct standard. That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong.

The distinction isn't subtle because it gives a nod to absolutes, to right, to wrong, to immutability over fluidity. It is not just living by clear dictates that avoids the stress of chaos, it is the belief that there are clear dictates that are with certainty true that avoids those stresses and it's adherence to an actual true standard that matters.

This isn't to suggest that the way things were were the way things should have remained because not every expression at any given moment is consistent with the way things ought to be, but I do see what "ought" to be as an objective question, not just a personal expression for the moment.

It's as if we erected all these fences so long ago and we forgot why, so we tore them down and barbarians invaded we never knew existed, so we frantically try to protect ourselves until someone suggests we might wish to reconstruct some of those fences. My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. If we don't take that stance, then we're just going to keep tearing those fences down again and again, thinking he can make friends with the barbarians and all get along.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one.

NOS4A2

The fragmentation of groups into other groups and the rise of identity politics is the business of collectivism. Replacing one group identity with another is a collectivist act. And none of the categories listed are in any sense individualistic in practice or in principle.

And this is a common theme among illiberal thinkers. Individualism is the scapegoat, and we see critiques of it often, except we’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere it has been implemented or widely-held in any manner as a philosophy, doctrine, or code of conduct.

BC

... individuals found themselves rejected and ostracized over their behavior, which in many cases they had no control over? A feminine-acting gay male could be the target of bullies, and their partnership with another male not legally recognized. A tight-knit gay community was necessary as long as gays felt unsafe in mainstream society. — Joshs

Gays have been subjected to instances of bullying, beatings, and murder, true enough. In my experience, gays managed to get along in a frequently unfriendly society by keeping a low profile when necessary. I'm not sure how much protection was gained by being a tightly knit community. Whatever tight-knit community existed was more the result of seeking sex, partners and love. Informal institutions -- cruising, bathhouses, bars, adult bookstores, and so forth were the core of at least the gay male community. Later, by the mid 1970s, social institutions became more prominent -- religious, social, or sport groups. Without the cell phone and internet, physical proximity was essential.

Greatly increased tolerance of homosexuality and electronic methods of finding partners has eroded "the gay community" such as it was pretty much out of existence.

In recent decades, media, including movies, series, and magazines, have driven unattainable archetypes of masculinity and femininity. — Benkei

Certainly during the last 5 or 6 decades this has been true, but it seems like the projection of an IDEAL look for men and women has been going on for a long time. Body shape, clothing, and various aspects of personal projection and promotion have been the province of fashion and style for a long time--centuries, not decades.

I'll readily grant that identity for some people has fractured--and not just around sexual identity. At the same time, most of the adults I know (various ages) seem to have secure, intact, robust identities. The more extreme and artificial one's identity is, the more likely it is to crack. One sees this in very religious individuals whose religion is no longer working for them the way it once did. The fracture can be quite distressing,

it’s a reaction to the insecurity fostered by hyper-individualism and identity fragmentation. — Benkei

I'm not sure I understand what 'hyper-individualism' is -- as it might apply to most people. Of course, there are people who march to a different drummer -- or they march along to some obscure beat originating in their own brain -- and they can be pretty "far out". You have to be tough to be a pioneer in new-gender invention, and some of these people strike me as kind of fragile.

There is quite a bit of blow-back against excessive individualism from the Church and from some political institutions, focusing on what I suppose is a perceived abandonment of collective commitments to others, to 'the community'. The abandonment isn't altogether imaginary.

Individualism which is rooted in a community is a different species than the individualism of the altogether detached person without social connection.

Tom Storm

That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong. — Hanover

One of those rare people who 'knows' what is true and good. Would you also consider yourself a conservative (socially/politically/culturally)?

My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. — Hanover

Nice to see Chesterton's Fence getting an outing.

So essentially you believe in tanscendent notions of truth and good and you see these as stemming from God? What would count as an example of barbarianism?

I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one. — Hanover

That would align with the Trump movement too, but I understand you may be ambivalent about that.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. — Hanover

This sounds demure. Wouldn't we require barbarians to be vanquished?

Hanover

One of those rare people who 'knows' what is true and good. Would you also consider yourself a conservative (socially/politically/culturally)? — Tom Storm

Not sure if this is sarcastic, as if to imply everyone thinks they know right from wrong, yet no one does.. Are you arguing for a subjectivism, or just being snarky? Not that snark is bad, but I'm just trying to understand your criticism, if that's what it is.

To the other question, I think I'd fall right of center in the US. On TPF, farther right of center.

So essentially you believe in tanscendent notions of truth and good and you see these as stemming from God? What would count as an example of barbarianism? — Tom Storm

I think it's clear I used the term metaphorically and hyperbolically, referencing those immoral things we wish to keep out of our society. This sounds again like your first question, which challenges absolute notions of morality, suggesting a subjectivism.

I'm really just trying to cut to the chase of what you're asking. You're sounding Socratic and I'd rather you just say you think my bold assertions of certainty are foundationless rants of a right winger if that's what you think. It won't insult me, but that's the best I'm deciphering from your questions.

That would align with the Trump movement too, but I understand you may be ambivalent about that. — Tom Storm

Probably accurate, but I think this thread suggests a reckoning with the political shift to the right that goes beyond Trump and American politics. The OP implies an abandonment of unified values leads to fragmentation and alienation. My response was agreement, but moralizing and saying that the OP doesn't just identify a sociological phenomenon when you don't share a common culture, but it identifies what happens when you do what is wrong.

And, if I've got this right, that moralizing resulted in your seeing a Republican in your midst and so you called me Trumpesque. I'd have preferred Jefferson. Donald has more baggage than I'm willing to accept.

This sounds demure. Wouldn't we require barbarians to be vanquished? — Tom Storm

Sure, if we take metaphors literally, we don't want to be besieged by wild eyed maniacs pounding at the gates or whatever picture you envision.

But, if we take the metaphor to mean we don't want to be besieged with that which violates our moral norms, I don't think the wholesale murder of our adversaries is in order. Maybe we just vote.

My first vote is to end the use of the term "demure." I made it 50+ years without it, and now it's a staple. I've now identified a barbarian for you.

Joshs

↪BC

Gays have been subjected to instances of bullying, beatings, and murder, true enough. In my experience, gays managed to get along in a frequently unfriendly society by keeping a low profile when necessary. I'm not sure how much protection was gained by being a tightly knit community. Whatever tight-knit community existed was more the result of seeking sex, partners and love. Informal institutions -- cruising, bathhouses, bars, adult bookstores, and so forth were the core of at least the gay male community. Later, by the mid 1970s, social institutions became more prominent -- religious, social, or sport groups. Without the cell phone and internet, physical proximity was essential — BC

If you haven’t spent much time in the few truly large gay communities in the U.S., you may not appreciate how important they were to gay people of a certain era. The gay community I am most familiar with is Chicago’s Boystown, which I frequented beginning in the ‘80’s. The kind of protection that it offered many who lived there was multi-faceted. Some young men had been excommunicated from their families and considered the gay bars as a substitute family. It was where they celebrated birthdays and holidays, found a shoulder to cry on, emotional and sometimes financial support.
Gay teens who found themselves homeless after being kicked out by their families would get a room at the gay bathhouse, sleep at the gay theater, the gay YMCA or transient hotel.

For others it was the only place they felt (relatively) safe holding hands and showing open displays of affection with other men. Some had been so traumatized by experiences of rejection from the larger community that they turned the neighborhood into an all-purpose gay ‘ghetto’, socializing exclusively with gay men, getting services only from gay doctors, dentists, psychologists, mechanics, real estate professionals, playing sports only within gay sports leagues, working out only at gay gyms and heath clubs, getting their news from local gay newspapers (Gay Chicago, Windy City Times). When AIDS came on the scene, at first it was only in places like Boystown or Castro that one could get new, affordable treatments and supportive emotional care.

Hanover

The fragmentation of groups into other groups and the rise of identity politics is the business of collectivism. Replacing one group identity with another is a collectivist act. And none of the categories listed are in any sense individualistic in practice or in principle — NOS4A2

I don't follow this. How can hyper-individualism be collectivist? Feels like a McCarthyist response, where all that is objectionable in the world must be rooted in communism.

I share your disdain for communism, but I don't see how you see that here.

Tzeentch

↪Hanover

'Hyper-individualism' is a bit of a confused term.

What I assume

↪Benkei

means is atomization: a situation in which social bonds break down and people are increasingly isolated from each other mentally and emotionally.

Calling it 'hyper-individualism' suggests that this is a trend that people desire and actively pursue - an effect of an Ayn Randian political movement that puts the individual on a pedestal (or something like that). The reality is that atomization is pretty much categorically experienced as negative.

If individuals are left to their own devices without interference of the state, they will continue to create and seek out community. It's a fundamental human need.

Therefore the frame of atomization being an effect of individualism is unsubtantiated.

Blaming "individualism" for this indeed looks a bit like the type of scapegoating one finds within collectivist enterprises, who will happily use it as an excuse to start interfering more in people's private lives. But I doubt that was the direction Benkei was thinking in.

The thread could use a little clarification and direction.

How can hyper-individualism be collectivist? — Hanover

The breaking down of traditional, cultural and national identities in favor of the communist 'identity' of total uniformity is commonplace historically.

Notice that this breakdown is often sold to people under the banner of 'independence' or emancipation, when in actual fact it trades dependency on social structures for dependency on the state.

Atomization also makes people isolated, fearful, anxious, etc. - susceptible to the worst types of human tendencies, which make them more likely to accept arbitrary use of power and power centralization as long as it promises solutions.

Hanover

The breaking down of traditional, cultural and national identities in favor of the communist 'identity' of total uniformity is commonplace historically. — Tzeentch

I suppose if you see it through the lens that the effort is at converting the population as opposed to opening it to other norms, then i guess the argument could be made, but i think it ultimately fails.

I don't see how the argument can be logically maintained because it assumes a pervasive culture being attacked by a rising discontent where the discontented must be defined as collectivist. Why wouldn't the currently existing culture be also collectivist if it's aim was just a uniformity of a different brand?

It's hard to follow how you can call a society with an entirely homogenous ideology and routine less collectivist than a diverse one. I think of 1950s US and certain Asian cultures, and I don't see how their homogenuity correlates to individualism. I think the 1950s US example as individualistic, but not the Asian one.

I think much of this is a misuse of terms. We're comparing homogenuity to diversity and somehow this is being morphed into a capitalism versus communism discussion. I think a case can be made that Marxist countries are more subject to social discord and infighting and internal purges and whatnot than more capitalist ones. The stereotype is that conservatives are too busy to protest.

I also see the collectivist/individualistic distinction a sociological one, rooted in history and often available resources. Poverty demands sharing. Collectivist social customs also don't foreclose capitalism, like Japan, for example, and especially among Asian immigrants to the US.

Anyway, this just feels like all social ills are being blamed on the boogeyman of communism.

I've got nothing good to say about communism either. I just think the objection raised is inapplicable.

Tzeentch

↪Hanover

I wouldn't necessarily say this attack on traditional values is the product of communism, but I get where the association comes from since it seems to feature this same intention of reshaping identities and destroying old ones.

It also has the same outcome: atomization, nihilism, etc. - the desastrous effects of which you can still see in countries which were formerly communist.

Cultures used to be a product of an authentic process that spanned hundreds of years of shared history.

Those tended to be quite homogeneous, but not collectivist. It didn't have as its specific purpose to instrumentalize the individual for the benefit of the state.

Collectivism and the idea that people's identities could be artificially reshaped to suit the state's needs really only found practical success with the advent of mass media (propaganda and mass manipulation), with its most egregious examples being fascism and communism, which are basically two sides of the same coin; communism being fascism for ethnically diverse nations that could not forge a national identity around racial superiority.

Do note that these types of processes can happen alongside natural processes by which a society changes and reflects upon its customs. Whether we are currently looking at something natural or artificial is up for debate, but I lean towards the latter.

NOS4A2

↪Hanover

Sounds like something Mao would say. But I never mentioned communism or communists. “Collectivism” doesn’t mean communism in any world I’ve lived in.

Nor did I say that “hyper-individualism” is collectivism. My claim is that there is no “hyper-individualism”. There is no such doctrine or belief convincing people to act this way or that. And until someone demonstrates that there is, such notions can be readily dismissed.

On the other hand, the vast majority of institutions, modes of production, methods of education, and the general culture is collectivist in both structure, practice, and thought. In recent memory we watched as most of the species locked each other in their houses, excluded from daily life those who would not take an unproven medical procedure, closed businesses, denied education, funerals, weddings, and all basic natural rights in favor of the strict regimentation of entire societies. And most allowed it to happen. There we had a clear choice between the two, and the world openly and proudly chose collectivism.

BC

↪Joshs

I am not familiar with every large gay community in the US, but I am more familiar with Boystown in Chicago than any other outside of my hometown. At one time, Minneapolis had a (smaller) gay ghetto like Chicago's -- and in it one could find gay businesses, service providers, social support, and the like. We also had two gay newspapers. Minneapolis's core city just isn't as big as Chicago's core city.

Boystown is still there; the Minneapolis community is mostly gone. The newspapers folded; the baths, cruising parks, adult bookstores, and the like are gone. Many of the social and religious institutions, like the softball league and other athletic groups, Lutherans Concerned, etc. fizzled out. The bar scene isn't what it used to be, by a long shot.

Gay people, of course, didn't go away. We're still here. And the bad stuff, like young people getting kicked out of their home, still happens. But mainline institutions have changed. Lutheran Social Services has two facilities for homeless youth, for instance. MCC is still in business, but the local mainline churches welcome gay individuals and couples, pretty much across the board.

I witnessed these changes over a 50+ year period, 1971 to the present. I would describe them as 'natural evolution'--not altogether welcome, but a result of internal as well as external changes in society.

One thing I am not very familiar with is how young gay people experience their identity today. I just don't have a lot of contact with young gay people in my old age. Their experience is likely not quite the same as it was in 1965 or 2000. "Gender discourse" has moved to the front of the class. I knew a few men and women transitioning from one gender to the other in the 1970s, but the 'discourse' wasn't as expansive then as it is now. and these pioneers had a steeper climb in some ways than they do now. Most gay men and women pair off in various ways now as they did in 1971, but they have more options now.

And they mostly run into a lot less hostility. It isn't that society is uniformly accepting and supportive; but at least among liberal Minnesotans, outright homo hating is bad form. We have become facts on the ground which even conservative types pretty much have to acknowledge.

Tom Storm

Not sure if this is sarcastic, as if to imply everyone thinks they know right from wrong, yet no one does. — Hanover

No, I meant that you are one of the minority members here who believes he can identify a true morality.

I think it's clear I used the term metaphorically and hyperbolically, referencing those immoral things we wish to keep out of our society — Hanover

Like you above, I wasn't clear how to read you. Thanks for clarifying.

And, if I've got this right, that moralizing resulted in your seeing a Republican in your midst and so you called me Trumpesque. I'd have preferred Jefferson. — Hanover

Not really. I was wondering if you were a conservative. I imagine some conservatives are Democrat too. Your comments were a bit puzzling to me, that's all. I misread your metaphor for absolute certainty which seemed at odds with your general approach (such as I have understood it).

As for me, I don't believe I have a set of coherent beliefs. I just act on intuition. I guess mostly I am a typical product of time and place - atheistic, secular, and inclined towards relativism.

I am curious what others think and why. Especially those who are certain.

My first vote is to end the use of the term "demure." — Hanover

Noted. I wasn't aware it was being used much these days. I was reaching for a word along the lines of 'mild' and demure slipped out.

The OP implies an abandonment of unified values leads to fragmentation and alienation. — Hanover

Yes, which is a familiar trope doing the rounds and a bit Jordan Petersonesque. I'm not sure I agree, as stated. My memory before Fox News, identity policies and social media (which seems to be the putative causes of this) is that society was fragmented and alienated already. A lot of this can also sound like, 'Society was a lot better when women and minorities knew their place.'

I am still curious as to what you count as barbarian, even if the word is hyperbole.

Paine

↪NOS4A2

So, you were onboard with much more death than happened.

Unless you are one of the people who believe the attempts to control the disease were causes of the event.

Please advise.

NOS4A2

↪Paine

It’s true, I am against the violation of basic human rights. Were you for the violation of basic human rights?

Paine

Hardly a response to my challenge. I take it you are not equal to it.

NOS4A2

↪Paine

Do you truly believe I was onboard with much more death?

Paine

↪NOS4A2

Your proposed response would have led to much more of that.

NOS4A2

↪Paine

Like Sweden?

“Existing official statistics at both the European and global levels regarding total COVID-19-associated and excess overall mortality rates suggest that Sweden was less affected than most comparable countries that implemented stricter lockdown measures (11–13).”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399217/

Then it appears that you are not only for the violation of human rights, but more death as well.

Paine

↪NOS4A2

That example is not comparable to the situation in the U.S.A.

But the citation does show you think the problem was manufactured.

Identity fragmentation in an insecure world

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions