Self Reliance: The Conspiratorial Society

 "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members."

The structure, rules, and regulations of society are what hold us back from individualism.

Societal laws help us every day. Without them we would be lost, or perhaps in a constant state of chaos. There is no question in my mind that we need them, for the most part. 

Yet there is a paradox in this idea. We need them to live (arguably), but it is perhaps only without these social norms that we can separate ourselves from the "we" of society, and forge our own identity. 

Think about it for a second. What do you believe? What is important to you, as a person? Then think about why or from where you get these values. Is it because you came to these conclusions yourself, or is it that your family told you what was right and what was wrong? Perhaps your values come from practicing a certain religion, or following a philosophy. But how much of what we "believe" comes from what we've actually learned from our own experiences?

I've come to the conclusion, after much contemplation (even before this assignment began), that "I" don't exist. What I refer

 to as "myself" and "me," at this point doesn't exist (in a philosophical sense). Right now, "I" am merely a compilation of the larger societal values, rules, regulations, and norms. Or rather I was, because after coming to this conclusion, I decided to start from scratch, build an individual "me" based off what I know to be true, not what others have told me is true or right or wrong.

The point of all this is that, as I believe Emerson is stating in this quotation, from an early age we're taught certain beliefs that come from the societies we take part in, and they become so much of a second nature that they form what most of us call "I" or "me," when in actuality they are nothing of the sort. 

Of course this is all dependent on what one defines as the "I." It may be that you as a person choose to define yourself as the beliefs you've been exposed to rather than the your experiences, which is completely fine and perhaps even more logical than the other option. But I firmly believe that whatever one chooses, whether it be to align themselves with what they've been taught or to forge their own self based on what they've experienced, it must be a conscious choice, otherwise one is merely a puppet of society.

Here's what I'm trying to say. Person A has grown up being taught a certain definition of success. Once they are older they form their own, completely individual opinion of what success is. They now have the option to choose between definition 1 and definition 2, but whatever they choose, they must be aware of the decision they make, otherwise it is meaningless.

Obviously there are problems in such a situation. Is there such a thing as a completely original concept, or is it impossible to keep the larger social psyche from perv

ading our most base functions? And should we even attempt to throw off the blanket society has cast over us?

Earlier this year, for my French class, I read the book L'Etranger (The Stranger) by Albert Camus. In it a man, different from the everyone else, is put on trial, supposedly for killing a man (which he did). Yet the entire case against him is built on the idea that he "buried his mother [who passed away earlier in the book] with the heart of a criminal." He is not judged against the laws of the court room, but rather the norms of a society that he does not understand. 

I understand that most of our laws and institutions are benevolent, but does it make sense that these social laws should replace common sense?

Perhaps it is true that society's rules and regulations are put into place to protect us from ourselves, but personally, I have faith in the essential kindness of humanity. I want to be certain that the person I define as me is just me, no one else.