Over the course of my own tribulations in life and self there has been one recurrent theme, of which I now believe possesses the greatest influence on my own state of existence: a subjective grappling between a duality of identity that takes many forms. This dichotomy of identity has been referred to in a variety of forms; conscious & unconscious; instinct & rationality; faith & science; good & evil; and so on, the etymology isn’t of consequence.
The interaction of these polar sides to identity form the foundation of human experience — my rejection of an experience on one side cripples that side while feeding the opposing one. As a basic example, I might deny myself a certain leisurely pleasure under the pretense that it’s unproductive, unnecessary, or otherwise unwanted. In rejecting myself some ‘idle pleasure’ I feed the industrious side of myself while enfeebling the pleasure-seeking side. This shapes my experience of things in ways I’m conscious and unconscious of — immediately speaking I might not recognize any real symptomatic effects apart from a difficulty concentrating on whatever it is I am trying to accomplish. If I maintain this imbalance for a longer term, however, I will start to suffer a variety of neuroses: stress, chronic inattention, listlessness, and general dissatisfaction. Through the repeated denial of a side of myself, I systematically starve it of vitality, inducing a sort of stored pain that can only be maintained for so long until the strength gained from the opposing side proves ineffectual.
Here it becomes critical to examine the influence culture and society has on the formation of these two identities. Humanity has long sought to simplify the two parts of ourselves, labelling one as good another as evil, or passing some other sort of valuation of either side’s merit. This is done through religion in part, but even more so with culture. Western culture has, since the industrial revolution (and probably earlier) prioritized a sort of rational empiricism; exalting the greatness of man’s advances in technology, medicine, and the physical sciences. The unintentional byproduct of this obsession in mastery of nature has been a disconnection with the subjective and qualitative aspects of the very nature we seek to master. An individual born into such a culture unknowingly has their expectations and values shaped in the image of their culture; that is to say that the western individual seems to innately laud rationality and productivity while simultaneously devaluing instinct and emotion. This mass ‘shaping’ (I place this in quotes because it is only a real shaping of personality inasmuch as the individual doesn’t realize it) of personality is both unavoidable and harmful.
Society, government, culture, are all averages of the current regional environment, they are a collection of individuals’ values and beliefs meshed into a singular and conceptual form. In creating such, we seek a semblance of fairness, hoping to harm and marginalize the least amount of individuals while maintaining a structure that keeps us protected from what’s perceived as our tempestuous and ‘anarchic nature’. However, this desire for protection often oversteps its bounds, marginalizing certain traits unfairly (race, sex, sexual preference, gender identity) which in turn serves as the foundation of mental imbalance and dysfunction for those possessing those traits.
Furthermore, in averaging the temperament of a group we wind up creating a collective consciousness that is unrepresentative of any single member of the group. The split between a person’s two identities lies upon a continuum, meaning there is an infinite amount of variation in the nuances with which each person ideally approaches things in their lives. When mixed into a culture (a collective averaging), there then spawns an innate dissonance that each individual feels (whether consciously or not) to the state of the culture. This disconnection then serves to create those very neuroses I earlier described. The individual, then, may be unconsciously perpetuating the cycles of their mental conflict, as they may be naturally more inclined (let us say the individual belongs to a western society I earlier described) to pursue things outside of the realm of industry, wealth, and science, preferring instead art, experience, and emotion — this individual, will then (unless both extremely talented and/or lucky in being provided for, or able to find financial sustenance in alternative means) struggle chronically to find an agreeable center and be unable to exist comfortably within society while still nurturing his or her natural inclinations. This precise disconnection, I believe, demonstrates the root of many persons’ growing romanticizing of nature, fantasizing of return to simplicity and self-sufficiency, since accompanying it is a purity of self and balance that cannot be found for them in society.
