Please don't think (individuals in captivity)

I'm always fascinated by the way that we in the U.S. are always assured of our "choices," of our "individualism" and yet we find ourselves increasingly turned into a non-thinking, pleasure seeking "group." This is the main point of the Adorno/Horkheimer essay as well, that the culture industry exists to assure we feel/think/believe ourselves to be individuals and yet to assure we are anything but. Take this essay out of the "culture industry" context for a second and put it into education. Think about how the meritocracy encourages individualism only to the extent that a child "excels" within a given structure: i.e. excellence = conformity. Children learn very early (sadly enough) that questioning "authority" is useless and can even bring punishment, alienation, and the label of deviant. So, the child that learns to be a parrot, to jump when told, to speak/think/act when prompted is reduced to the lab rat that gets the cheese only when it navigates a maze via mastering the system of learned fear/punishment/pain and reward. The child that jumps through the required hoops is rewarded at the end and taught that they are good/smart/impressive etc. The child that questions why the hoops exist, why the structure must be, why the rules seem oppressive is punished, ostracized, deemed deviant, rebellious or that dreaded word: incorrigible. But children are naturally inquisitive and they LOVE to challenge authority so by forcing them into a system of conformity and obedience we are assuring social cohesion and collective identity NOT individualism nor freedom in any real sense of the word.

This brings me back to my original thought. Why are we encouraged to believe that we are individuals, in the best society possible, without question when everything we know about our individual identity is shaped in relation to others? We do not learn who we are even as a "society" without first defining what we are not. The point here is not to question where the definitions come from, but why they exist and who they protect/promote/privilege?
So how does that work? How is it that we as "Americans" are willing to fight to uphold this notion of individualism that doesn't seem to exist in reality, while still subscribing to a collective identity of Americanism. I just find it interesting that many are so determined to blindly uphold a mass produced myth that perpetuates gross economic inequality in the name of "individualism" while simultaneously arguing that there is such a thing as a "national" identity, this invisible entity of experience that "unites" "us." We can't even agree on a textbook history of every single "American" yet alone approach anything resembling 'class consciousness' that would allow for a collective resistance to the repression of true freedom. Is a "national" identity a good thing, particularly when it can be manipulated into a call for war and violent retribution?
Should a democratic nation look to an "elected" representative as a father figure? Doesn't that dynamic reduce a thinking/feeling/reflecting public to a childlike collective frightened of every shadow? It has been pointed out quite effectively by several of my professors that the very best aspects of U.S. life has come as a result of socialist struggle NOT one for individual freedoms but collective freedoms/safety/security. And yet even the collective can obviously be coerced into thinking "it" needs a "strong, steadfast leader" rather than one that is all too human in places compassionate wisdom above dogmatism and willing to admit mistakes rather than flatly deny even being caught in a lie. Most two year olds can admit when they've been caught in a lie and yet we won't even hold our "elected" leaders to that same standard. This disturbs me.

It also makes me think about the many ways in which people are stripped of their individuality by boot camp/basic training, religious affiliations, EDUCATION, capitalism, family pressure, societal pressure, economic necessity. Well they are many, many ways in which this notion of individual freedom starkly contrasts the reality of life in the U.S. and as Adorno/Horkheimer argue, this respect/adoration/elevation of the individual in enlightenment thinking is now itself a commodity. We are really consumers to this industry that sees us as profits or as they put it, "Industry is interested in people merely as customers and employees, and has in fact reduced mankind to this all-embracing formula" (147).

They unpack the individual vs. collective dilemma quite well, arguing: "Everybody is guaranteed formal freedom. No one is officially responsible for what he thinks. Instead everyone is enclosed at an early age in a system of churches, clubs, professional associations, and other such concerns, which constitute the most sensitive instrument of social control" (150). This makes sense in the way that even debates can be framed in such a way as to prevent actual dialogue or discussion and speeches can be framed in such a way as to prevent critical thought/reflection upon the constant repetition of certain phrases to assure that listeners believe there is such a thing as a national consciousness. Can a "nation" have a consciousness? How often do individuals truly think/reflect/feel exactly the same long enough to develop a shared consciousness? I don't think we communicate enough with each other to actually have a shared world view yet alone a shared consciousness mature enough to be a collective identity. Actually, Adorno/Horkheimer go into this as well, arguing: "Life in the late capitalist era is a constant initiation rite. Everyone must show that he wholly identifies himself with the power which is belaboring him."
"Everyone can be like this omnipotent society; everyone can be happy if only he will capitulate fully and sacrifice his claim to happiness" "In the culture industry the individual is an illusion not merely because of the standardization of the means of production. He is tolerated only so long as his complete identification with the generality is unquestioned" (153-154).

So if I understand this right, (it seems they are arguing Marx's view of capitalism and its relationship to the superstructure) the illusion of the individual's freedom/choice is perpetuated to both distract him/her from the reality of his powerlessness as a worker/commodity and repress in him/her the ability and willingness to resist such oppression. This perhaps is why the "left" is so divided as a group. Those who consider themselves "rightists" are very happy to view their interests as a group and as individuals. In fact, they are so good at it, they convince everyone else that their interests ARE everyone's interests and that their gains ARE society's gains. The "left," on the other hand, seems to be so stuck in factionalism and this factionalism gets grossly overrepresented to the point to where Kerry can't call himself a liberal because it's the new bad word, equated with everything from lazy intellectualism to "tree hugging" environmentalist. The "left" is also underrepresented as a "group" because the few successes are seen as concessions offered to maintain social cohesion rather than the hard earned fruits of a struggle enacted for the good of the social BY concerned and dedicated individuals. They are not represented by the "liberal" media as a positive however, they are either ignored, belittled or presented as a threat to social order: "Unpatriotic" "Anti-" "Protest-happy."
Adorno/Horkheimer offer a great quote to tie this together: "The blind and rapidly spreading repetition of words with special designations links advertising with the totalitarian watchword" (165). I don't think most of us (myself included) truly understand all of the political implications such tiny words "right" and "left" can have but we throw them around anyway because politicians use them as if they were really metaphors for good and bad, success and failure, morality and sin. Right and left are only words but they also offer us catagories of indentification that both fuel the myth of individual choice and collective identity. Do these words REALLY define you? Or do they simply bind you into a way of thinking/feeling/acting that has already been fed to you as a definition/identity? What is SO wrong about thinking of others wellbeing anyway? What is SO wrong about caring for the environment that we all must share? It is most puzzling to me how if you are considered a "liberal" you are denounced as being a foolish "bleeding heart" when every American is dependent upon the work of others (and even the wellbeing of others) to assure their own livelihoods and the success of the U.S. as
a nation. This is also part of the problem with univeralizing a Western model of human rights when even in this country, rights are really privileges that the State offers, delivers, and can take away. More on this later.

peace!