Unfortunately, this tendency can become destructive when we take refuge in attributes or ideas which are only relevant insofar as they have taken over our sense of "self". Most minority groups find themselves in this situation because social opposition has forced them to "band" together. For example, we see people who identify themselves as "black" or "homosexual" or "woman".
This is not to say that the attribute itself is always problematic. It is not problematic to be a "black" or a "homosexual" or a "woman". What is problematic is when the individual holds on to that attribute and make it his identity. People caught in this memetic trap come to identify themselves as part of a "community" ("black community", "gay community", "female community"). All their thoughts and actions become measured not by how they agree with the person, but with the "community" which has taken that attribute as its cause.
In reality, we are individuals who happen to hold different sets of opinions and contain various attributes. We have five fingers, we uphold the existence of gravity, we have a certain skin colour and a certain sexual orientation. None of these attributes are any more important than another.
Remember, worth and value are not wrapped up in what you do. You are not a human doing. You are a human being.
Anonymous proverb
It does appear otherwise because of social pressure, as this is what pushes people to conform to a "community" in the first place. But this social pressure is not an ethical standard : hatred for something is not any more an argument against anything, than popularity is an argument in favour of anything.
This is not to say that political activism is not a valid course of action. There is a vast difference between supporting something and being absorbed in that thing. Rather the contrary, if we identify ourselves as individuals who just happen to have a particular attribute and are being persecuted because of it, then the argument for activism becomes much more powerful than when we see ourselves as "freaks" that have set ourselves apart from society, whatever persecuted opinion we uphold.
This all comes back to the three stages of acceptance that I discussed in the second part of "Foundation Series : Enlightened Morality". At the first stage, you have bigots and hatemongers - negatively reactionary. Repressed homosexuality is one obvious example. At the second stage, you have those people who identify themselves completely in their attribute, "community"-mongers - positively reactionary. At the third and final stage, the attribute is properly integrated in one's life, and we have an objective acceptance of the facts as opposed to any reactionary emphasis. What we call a "balanced individual".
Go To Page: 1 2
