Cult of individuality

Think of ‘success’ in the contemporary age and a few words come to mind: initiative, influence, innovation, inspiration, individuality. Other than the fact that they sound similar, there is a particular common thread running through each — that of the ‘self’ as both the starting and end point of all endeavours. In a world so interconnected, with trade dependencies, labour migrations, sociocultural overlaps, religious communitarianism, intergovernmental bodies, and the interwebs at large, how has it come to pass that the ‘common interest’ is nowhere to be seen or heard of — particularly in media and academia?

In order to understand the current moment, it is important to begin with the philosopher that has perhaps had the most influence on the world since the time of his writing: Friedrich Nietzsche. Two particular ideas that he was a virulent proponent of were a) the ‘will to power’, and b) perspectivism. The central message of the first was that the vast majority of people are fundamentally weak, submissive, and largely ‘invisible’ as far as societal decision-making is concerned. For Nietzsche, the antidote to this was what he called the ‘will to power’ — a relentless war that is waged on these petulant traits/proclivities at a personal level with the objective of rising above ‘the herd’ and imposing oneself on the world. Becoming an ‘Übermensch’ (translated as Superman) was the ultimate objective of this newfound quest — a higher order being that was unanswerable to any force, institution, or outmoded cultural remnants but had graduated to becoming the captain of his own ship. Alongside this, Nietzsche promoted an ideology of subjectivity that is perhaps most accurately captured by his quote: “You have your way, I have mine. As for the right way, the correct way, or the only way, it does not exist.” This has to do with the idea that there is no inherent, objective ‘meaning’ or ‘value’ to anything due to biases, delusions, tribal pressures, etc. that all cloud a human being’s judgment at any given point. The conclusion he points to here is that all grand moral and political projects are empty pastimes — a mere refuge for lower order beings suffering from a sense of generalized resentment for having failed to achieve anything substantive in their lives.

While Nietzsche claimed to be an apolitical figure, his ideas quickly proliferated across the domains of media, academia, and politics. The most obvious manifestation of this was the Nazi regime under the messianic leadership of Adolf Hitler, which drew its ideological inspiration directly from the philosopher to squash trade unions, ban all books associated with ‘collectivist aspiration’, and brutally annihilate millions of Jews in concentration camps. Within philosophy, Ayn Rand — also heavily influenced by Nietzsche — popularised the maxim of pursuing one’s ‘self-interests’ as the highest moral ideal. In a related vein, the existentialists rejected all notions of external purpose/meaning — instead arguing for an ‘inward journey’ to the recesses of the psyche to discover one’s true nature. Albert Camus famously categorised all worldly affairs and pursuits as ‘absurd’ — claiming that “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart; one must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Here again, the picture painted is of a solitary individual striving to make something of themselves ‘for its own sake’ — similar to the manner in which videogames might be played ‘to win’ even when there are no prizes at stake. Within economics, Friedrich Hayek propped up as a leading voice within the Austrian school, positing that any and all ‘government intervention’ in the economy is destined for failure due to poor information — and that the ‘free market’ ought to be the only determinant of how resources are distributed in countries. Behind a mask of ‘individual liberty’, the ultimate effect of Hayek’s ideas was neoliberalism: an ideology that subsumes the state apparatus under big capital, essentially forfeiting democracy to a privileged elite class which behaves akin to the old aristocracies. Last but not least came postmodernism, a school of thought that emphasised ‘lived experiences’ over empiricism and metanarratives — arguing that ‘power’ is not just embedded in institutional/structural arrangements but equally operates at the micro level in interpersonal engagements. The byproduct of this was a movement away from political explanations for societal pathologies and a reversion to moral/ethical one-upmanship contests at an individual level.

Each of the aforementioned currents may be seen as Nietzsche’s various children. The irony is that while they all pay an inordinate amount of lip-service to ideas of personal freedom and autonomy, they simultaneously function as incredible ideological tools to preserve the status quo and insulate the overarching system of capitalism from any institutional critique or political challenges. As pointed out by Daniel Tutt, a kind of ‘accelerationism’ is observed: whereby the working class begins to shift attention away from the fact that it is being economically exploited and instead perceives members of its own communities as competition, leading to widespread atomization and societal fragmentation on the one hand but enhanced levels of participation in the prevailing order on the other. This is sold as ‘empowerment’ — flooding vulnerable populations with Malcolm X’s ‘ghetto hustlers’: “The ghetto hustler… has no religion, no concept of morality, no civic responsibility, no fear — nothing. To survive, he is out there constantly preying upon others, probing for any human weakness like a ferret. The ghetto hustler is forever frustrated, restless, and anxious for some ‘action’.” As ‘individual liberty’ reigns supreme as the overarching hegemonic ideology, 60% of the US workforce lives paycheck to paycheck. So much for freedom.

At an aggregate level, a certain culture of narcissism has prevailed: hyper-fixation on the self and tunnel-vision for ‘getting ahead’ — and a hero’s journey narrative to constantly fuel the fire. Collective interests and structural considerations have been all but sidelined — replaced by a cutthroat, dog-eat-dog modality that ensures labor productivity and ultimately only serves the interests of the ruling elite. It is no wonder the likes of Donald Trump have emerged as revolutionary figureheads that promise to ‘change things’ — despite the fact that they failed (or deliberately avoided) to do so in previous terms. This is because regardless of value systems, ideological proclivities, or policy priorities, they offer the illusion of ‘strong personalities’ that represent Nietzsche’s Übermensch: with supporters vicariously living the experience through them.

In the age of postmodernity, where nothing means anything, is any of this a surprise?

Published in The Express Tribune, March 27^th, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.