Diseases of modern society

Man is surrounded by people, and he feels more alone than ever. Or what is common between Yung and Facebook.

It sounds like a paradox, but it's really logical. Yung, for example, describes the problem, but he is sufficiently simple to see him as long as he wants to. Those who understand economics will understand it most easily. A man can be seen as a resource that has a certain demand and a certain supply. When supply exceeds demand, the price falls. So it is with people. For example, when you are surrounded by two people, your attitude to them will be radically different than if you are surrounded by two thousand. Urbanization, which has been an integral part of civilization at least until now, causes this collapse in the value of man. No one is "indispensable" not only for work but also for "people's hearts". Although people now have the opportunity (via information technology) to de-urbanize, few realize the depth of the problem. However, they all feel at an unconscious level, and they resolve it instinctively, often in a way too dangerous for them (and those around them).

To be accepted by a vast community of people who have almost nothing really in common with each other, you need to develop some abstract common behaviors/pose/thinking. This is called conformism. For example, if most men cut their hair first (because it is perceived as more masculine), then you should do the same, otherwise, you will look "strange". Since there are so many people around you who are not "weird," according to the law of least resistance, the rest will not stand and wonder why you have decided, but just will seal your indignation by sticking your label. The problem of conformism, however, is one. On the one hand, individualism is lost because it requires more effort than others to understand. On the other hand, such "generally accepted" norms are mostly imposed externally through popular culture, politics, media. Ie. people are easily manipulated externally, and so on. social engineering. Society can and is modeled under a different pretext, usually for its "good" of course ... But who can really say whether it is?

Once a personality is not valued (because it is often referred to as "odd"), and everyone is trying to look "normal," one has to find another way to be spotted by others. But even this is modeled by popular culture. To be "seen" by others, you have to be a "star". People in a conformist society develop the pathological need of others to notice them and the glory. They do not just want to be valued in their personal circle, but abstract general popularity. Interestingly, every larger group of people always broadcasts a "star". He / She speaks the most, dresses and looks most modern, the biggest narcissus is, and the others are trying to be liked (to prove their own significance). The "star" thus develops a desire for authority over those who bow before her because she notices that they love to copy and repeat it. These are extremely pathological relationships, but if one does not join the "train" to be "popular", it risks not only being "strange" but also becoming an outsider. The outsider is much more common in modern society because even people who just want to lead a healthy social life become such. If a person refuses to be conformist, refuses to fight for "popularity," he is automatically becoming an outsider in most of the eyes. No one will cry for him because the rest are too busy trying to make "popular" like them ... No one is looking for and respecting the unobtrusive man he sees himself ... Who invented "social networks "he must have read Jung, and he has realized this human condition in the modern urban society. Social networks, of course, are not really "social". They are an opportunity for this self-indulgent modern person to pretend that someone else somewhere cares about him. To upload posts and photos of dogs, cats, mangoes, excursions, and what not yet, hoping that someone else is interested in his actions. He just has so many "friends" and "followers" that he can not pass on this vital information except to publish it on the Internet for the whole world. I personally am too skeptical of the world, but there is one who is really interested in him, and everyone like him - the Power ...

One stops solving problems in their relationships. When something does not work the way you think it is easier to break them ... there is always someone else in the market with whom you can try again. This creates for him an enchanted circle that the problem is always in "someone else" because there is always someone with whom he has not done the same as with the previous one ... Is it really that kind of thing that can be called a relationship, or is just a treatment - or you agree with it or not.

One does not even need to do good if it really costs. Some people remember life at the time, especially those in the village when people were helping, supporting, communicating. Why is it that everyone has become more nervous and less and less devoted to someone else? Although there is not one factor, the biggest one is that just the environment has changed. As long as you had to spend a lifetime with certain people and your life depended heavily on them, at the moment, people are changing not only cities but also countries. The biggest factor for your survival is not the people, the money. There is no such relationship, with the earth, with the people, it has no value. And let's not forget that man is an egoistic being, and few would do something in which they do not see first a benefit for themselves. Just like before, now.

Finally, after all this, one remains deeply insecure in himself and the rest. He easily nods the other when he gets a better chance, but at the same time, he is easily kicked in turn. The only solution to the problem for him remains to become more and more closed in his own ego, embracing unhealthy egoism and egocentrism. But in order to forget about this fact, he must continue the falsity, play the role, spread his disease more and more to the others. To turn them into what he represents ...

Instead of the concrete individual, you have the names of organizations and, at the highest point, the abstract idea of the State as the principle of political reality. The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the State (raison d’etat). Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in the individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed, and educated as a social unit, accommodated in the appropriate housing unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses. The rulers, in their turn, are just as much social units as the ruled and are distinguished only by the fact they are specialized mouthpieces of State doctrine. They do not need to be personalities capable of judgment, but thoroughgoing specialists who are unusable outside their line of business. State policy decides what shall be taught and studied.

C.G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self

"It's a social-validation feedback loop ... exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology. The inventors, creators — it's me, it's Mark [Zuckerberg], it's Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it's all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway."

Sean Parker, founding president of Facebook

To be continued...