Earlier many human beings were spared from the painful choice situations because everything was embedded in a frame that was commonly decided. Assuredly this was on good and bad.
Now a new sort of loneliness is forced upon a lot of people – we are forced to choose (is this freedom? Or what sort of "freedom") and "judge" about almost everything, from the color of the toothbrush to the choice of phone company and pension insurances. This is called forced reflexivity by sociologists.
The numbers of choice-situations have become more, increased (a lot), and also become more complicated. Compared to earlier.
The responsibility weighs heavily upon the individual.
Sisyphus’s torment is rather confusion more than heavy work.
The autonomous human being the existentialists were talking about is in its way becoming replaced with the constantly insecure human being. She isn’t the one choosing between clear alternatives, but rather more and more irresolute and hesitating (if she doesn’t hide this both to herself and to other people).
Addition: who are gaining most on this insecurity and confusedness?
The choice situations don’t correspond with assets of time for reflections. Sisyphus the younger is at risk of becoming hit by paralysis over how to act.
If Sisyphus the younger becomes sick, stressed to pieces or unhappy depends entirely upon himself. And if he becomes unemployed this is due to lack of success in getting a winning personality and thus being capable of walking successfully from an interview after having written an impressing curriculum vitae. If he is insecure or being in agony over the future it’s because he isn’t good enough at getting friends, he fails thinking positively, that he hasn’t succeeded in the art of making impressions on other people OR because he has problems expressing himself.
Quickly the new market’s entrepreneurs and life style coaches are there to exploit Sisyphus the younger's situation. New markets are profiting on and maybe even trying to increase his feelings of insecurity and confusedness.
My addition: yes, for the ones who can afford these coaches and can pay for advices and therapy. The others are left behind, entirely. And this is their fault entirely. Has nothing with structures to do!?
No wonder if people resort to magical thinking? And also see the leaning back indifference in a recent posting; "Indifference as hidden violence..."
Struck me, we have an expression here called "collective punishment"... And it seems as this expression isn't ours exclusively!! :)
When I was searching for a special article I found this one "Rich Get Poorer. Poor Disappear" ending like this:
"If that sounds politically unfeasible, consider this: When Clinton was cutting welfare and food stamps in the 90s, the poor were still an easily marginalized group, subjected to the nastiest sorts of racial and gender stereotyping. They were lazy, promiscuous, addicted, deadbeats, as whole choruses of conservative experts announced. Thanks to the recession, however – and I knew there had to be a bright side – the ranks of the poor are swelling every day with failed business owners, office workers, salespeople, and long-time homeowners. Stereotype that! As the poor and the formerly middle class Nouveau Poor become the American majority, they will finally have the clout to get their needs met."
Chomsky on applying standards on ourselves we apply to others (hmmm...):
Inlägg
