There is an odd feeling that I’ve caught myself encountering more often now than in the past.
Not only that, but I’ve spoken about it with friends and family, and they too seem to have these pervasive thoughts invade their everyday attempts at well-being and peace.
The feeling that I’m referring to is that something around here is not quite right. It’s similar to when you visit a friend’s house and they leave to grab something from the supermarket, leaving you all alone in their house. It’s a space that you know is made for someone else, and finding yourself in that space is a little discomforting.
Only that, in that situation, you are free to leave the friend’s house at any time. However, this feeling that I’m talking about never really leaves. Anywhere you go, any context you find yourself in is the friend’s house, and you are always the invader.
Of course, the analogy with the house is simply metaphorical, as it is not the physical space that is of our concern. Rather, it is those conventions that we have, such as religious beliefs, social customs, taboo topics of discussion, or behaviour that is considered antisocial. Within these conventions, I believe that more and more people find themselves disenfranchised as of now.
But this feeling is far from being an anomaly. It is a very precise and measurable consequence of certain changes that have happened extensively during the last Century, one that will continue to affect each of us in differing degrees, probably throughout the course of our lives.
Due to its extensive impact, I decided to cover it in-depth in this article. And, for the sake of simplicity, I will refer to this feeling as the struggle between the inner and outer self.
On the Old World and Its Legacy
When people are prompted to mention the differences between society from before the 20th Century and today, the main temptation is to swirl towards technology. Smartphones, modern medicine, the Internet, and many other things would probably be seen as witchcraft back then.
Others tend to go towards minority rights or other instances of social progress. Women’s rights movement, the dissipation of racial segregation, and the emergence of LGBTQIA+ discourse in the mainstream world were all developments that were confined to the 20th Century, at least for the Western world.
However, as substantive as these differences are, they are not the subject of our discussion. Rather, what I find to be the fundamental distinction between then and now is the perspective of society on the self. Before the 20th Century, the self was not a matter to be defined by everyone subjectively, but rather a question of conformity and duty.
People were born into families and communities that had very specific needs to be filled. For instance, a man needed to be a father, a provider, a woodworker, and a good household leader from the get-go. He had to believe in God, to accept and respect the customs of the community, and to fulfil his duties to his fellow villagers to the very end.
You will notice that, within the confines of this given identity, there is not a whole lot of room for navigation. One’s social standing, choice of work, sexuality, belief, and lifelong community would already be established from the outside, and there was no need for self-discovery or anything of this sort.
Any question pertaining to meaning would be hastily answered by either religion or the needs of the community. This outward pressure to conform and to be defined in terms of necessity was peacefully accepted by most because of its ability to shut down existential inquiries.
Starting from this state of affairs, probably long before our frame of reference, the world started to become heavily infused by this prevailing mentality of the outer self. The idea that one must conform to what society needs has been embedded into most structures of the world, be they political or cultural.
Social norms were built around this outward pressure to fulfil a role that has been given to you, and the political and private institutions of the world too have this idea woven into the fabric of their very existence. Let’s look at a few examples.
The institutions of education and work were not created to help one find one’s vocation. Rather, their purpose is to stimulate one’s entry into the workforce, in accordance with what was demanded and available on the job market. It was about the self that society needed, not the authentic one that the individual wanted.
Similarly, gender roles and the binary emerged for the same reason. It was not that men and women would feel best if they abided by a set of normative behaviours, but rather because the family and community of the past needed them to act a certain way. Again, it was about the outer self.
However, during the 20th Century, this perspective was about to change.
The Shift Towards the Inner Self
Surprisingly, the first shifts towards accepting and valuing the inner self-started all the way back in the 15th Century with Martin Luther’s reform. Back then, being a well-behaved Christian meant being in line with the rules outlined by the church.
It meant respecting priests and high-ranking church officials as an authority and leading a life free of sin and deviations, at least in public life, but Martin Luther’s response set the stage for the emancipation of the inner self. He said that all of these appearances of faith and belief are nothing more than platitudes and items of social status.
To him, the only real representation of faith in God could manifest solely in the heart of the believer. In other words, faith and belief were not about what was shown to society, but rather what was being felt at an inner level.
Such an idea was unheard of at that time, as anything that people were doing needed to be defined as a function of social status and conformity. In this sense, Martin Luther, although a devoted religious dogmatist, was a radical of his time.
This change would be secularized by Kant within his broader philosophy of ethics, which saw human morality as not the respect of a divine commandment, but rather the enunciation of principles of behavior based on reason.
However, the full consolidation of the inner self and its relation to the outer self came with the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His conception of the state of nature was that, before society and communal living had emerged, humans were rather peaceful and deeply introspective beings.
He saw the pre-social world as one in which the authentic, emotional self was free to roam and develop, without the constraints of social conformity. When society did emerge, Rousseau saw it as an inherent suppression of the inner self and its subordination to social norms. In this sense, his moral compass relating to this matter was that the liberation and emancipation of this inner self was the single most desirable advancement in human society.
Although Rousseau never lived to see it, this advancement came to fruition during the 20th Century. With the advent of the first industrial urban agglomerations, people from all across the nearby regions, if not farther, swarmed to live together in the same place. Suddenly, there was no longer a village that had expectations of you and your role in the community, but rather many different people with differing perspectives on life and society.
All of a sudden, the people who had their lives drawn out for them had the possibility to choose who they wanted to be and what they wanted to believe. They were exposed to new religions, new political views, new cultures, and so on. For the first time, the question of what the inner self wants has emerged as a serious social dilemma.
Either as a consequence or as an unrelated event, the 20th Century also harboured the downfall of religion in the Christian world. In the words of Nietzsche, God was now dead, and we, the people, have killed him. The void of meaning left behind by abandoning the tendency to conform to outer rules was now accompanied by a broader lack of divine moral direction.
Thus, the 20th Century saw the emergence of the very first questions of identity and self-determination in the true sense of the word. It mattered little what the world needed from us, as long as we could accomplish what we wanted for ourselves.
Yet, this tale is very far from coming to a fantasy-like ending.
The Ruins and Their Strange Glow
The progression discussed above shows that we are now navigating the transition between social conformity and inner liberation. The consequence of our position right now is a stark sense of mental dissonance that, sooner rather than later, will be experienced by most of us.
The world of today is infused with the traditions of the old society. The norms, traditions, customs, and beliefs that we are exposed to are those that crafted the society of conformity and duty. The education system is the same, the work system is the same, and gender stereotypes are far from being broken down. But now we know that these ideas are not all there is.
Although the world around us is still very anchored in the traditions of the past, the progress of ideas has empowered many of us to place more emphasis on the inner self. Metaphorically, the people of the 19th Century were prisoners who didn’t know there was a world outside of the prison. We do know, and many of us have even been there before.
We are self-emancipated individuals who live in the ruins of an empire built on slavery and subjugation. We see the stains of blood and struggle everywhere we look, and our efforts to clean up and make this place our home seem infinitely in vain.
The presence of the old society in today’s institutions often means that we must directly confront social conformity. We must engage in the labor market so that we don’t starve and have a place to live. Some must tell their families that they’ll never be married, as their religion does not recognize the kind of love that they want. Others feel a helpless sinking sense of self-esteem from not engaging in status-building activities, like buying a fancy car or earning more money.
There’s a strange glow on these ruins of the old world that, to many, signals an appeal to conform and to stop fighting. In their conception, accepting their fate as creatures subordinated to duty is the sacrifice that makes life easier. But while that may be the case, we know that we’ll never forget the taste of self-authenticity once we’ve experienced it.
Thus, our dilemma here is that of a prisoner who gazes outside their cell every day, longing for the freedom of the outer world, but being confined to the cell all the same as one without a window. What is there to be done in this position, other than the defeatist acceptance of conformity?
Final Remarks - The Free Prisoner’s Manifest
Any prisoner of the old world is faced with 3 possibilities: admit defeat, plan and execute an escape, or liberate the mind. The first is the option of dropping the pretence of self-emancipation and accepting to be guided by the outer self’s duties.
The second option is the escape from the system, the equivalent of carefully planning and executing a prison break when the time is ripe. Of course, this option is the most desirable. Since knowing which social norms and customs are preventing one’s authentic self from manifesting is a subjective matter, there are not many guidelines to discuss here.
If one feels attacked by needing to work meaningless jobs, their desire may be to retire early and live a life free from labor constraints. If one feels suppressed by one’s community and their judgement of one’s action, the due course may be to leave the community behind in favor of a like-minded one or solitude.
However, we must be aware that such escapes are often far into the future for many of us. For those who cannot execute an escape, there is an alternative to deal with this dissonance.
Liberating the mind is the third and, in my view, the most powerful option available. It does not matter what one’s physical confines are, as long as the mind is free to fly and explore all there is in its solitude. This is what I consider to be a timely and reasonable solution.
Liberating the mind presupposes a set of actions that must be carried out. Firstly, one must realize the inherent contradictions of the struggle between the inner and outer self. By reading this article and relating it to personal experience, you have already started on this path.
Understanding the contradictions means not only seeing the logical fallacies within them, but also feeling the struggle, the subjugation, and the hurt that they cause to your inner self. One must experience the dissonance through all available means to gain a profound enough qualia of the situation.
Next, one must realize which side of the dissonance is the intrusive one. The rules of outer society are customs that have been built outside of one’s self, thus they do not relate in any way to one’s subjective experience. They have been created for social archetypes, people who do not really exist in the true sense of the word, but who are approximations of rules and norms.
On the other hand, the inner self is related to one’s subjective experience, it comes from a profound sense of authenticity, and it is meant to reflect what the individual thinks and feels. The inner self is authentic, and the outer self is intrusive. We cannot follow rules that were not crafted for us and expect them to fulfil us after having tasted inner emancipation.
Lastly, one must understand that engaging with the old world, conforming to what society needs, and fulfilling one’s duties are matters of survival, not choice. We may often be forced to do things that do not reflect who we are, or what our inner self is. It is imperative for us to understand that we are simply carrying out what we need to do to survive.
Following social norms inasmuch as it is necessary is the correct course of action in this situation. Without having a job, friends and acquaintances, and many other things that make modern life enjoyable, we could never engage with our inner selves as deeply. Being homeless or lonely poisons the mind and hinders self-reflection and authenticity.
Although it may sound counterintuitive, temporary conformity is the duty one has to one’s inner self and its authenticity. Even though we engage with society and continue to live in the old world, the world of coercion and oppression, we must keep a constant and persistent awareness of its wrongful character.
It is this action that will allow us to thrive, liberate the mind, and emancipate and empower the inner self as much as it is feasibly possible. There is no need to escape prison if the prison does not hinder one’s well-being.
The cell confines the body, but not the mind.
Such an excellent article. Your research and knowledge is extensive. Thankful for people like you willing to share your gift with the world.
I believe that long-form critical analysis of who we are and the world we live in is the best path forward, even if that path is indirect.
I don't know if you are familiar with the work of David Graeber and David Wengrow titled The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity, where they claim that some of the eastern tribes had managed to develop a way of life that allowed for individualism within the tribe.
I have been struggling with an essay, that essentially tries to emphasize, that in order to survive political unrest, climate change, and unsettling, unpredictable supply of essential goods (remember the shortages of toilet paper and baby food) a local community must come together to meet the needs of the bottom level of Maslow's pyramid, and I'm only thinking of food and shelter.
Your post strikes fear in my mind, that such an approach might lead to tribalism and conformity. My emphasis on just two "needs" might circumvent the worst of such a scenario, because, conservative or liberal, we all need to eat. I'm not sure how to formulate such an idea, that most people could embrace. What do you think?