Individualized Human

*Prof. Dr. Asım Yapıcı

The phrase of “individualized human” indicates that humans were not individual creatures before. “What is the meaning of individualized in this phrase?” first we must answer this question. Since humans prioritize their individuality in order for the continuity of their lives. For instance, pain and pleasure are subjective feelings that are always experienced individually. Pain and happiness are experienced by the “ego” in other words “I”. However, as being different from the “I”, “self” is developed within the process of interactions with the outside world. In the sense, the self is regarded as a phenomenon that was constructed by the person’s self and their social environment. This can be defined as “self-representation” and/or “mirror self”.  How a person perceives and makes sense of himself with the help of his self-representation and/or mirror self can change the way he feels pain or pleasure at the consequence of the experiences of his “self”. Events that are perceived, felt or experienced occur in a way that was determined by particularly the family as well as the society, the law, the state and the religion. In similar vein, the phenomena such as freedom, meaning, truth, religion and morals -consciously or unconsciously- are shaped by the individual’s interaction with the outside world.

If the phrase “individualized human” refers to the people who are aware of being “a person of the community” and “an individual in the society”, individuation can be regarded as a positive improvement. Every person who supports himself, adapts into the society he lives in and meanwhile, legitimately battles against the mistakes and the wrongs that he observed in the outside world contributes to both his own personal growth and social advancements. To that end, being a person of community is a desired behavior and lifestyle. If, however, there is a dissolution in the community, in other words, an impersonalization, we can’t talk about an individual in this situation and moreover, the social structure will become dull and non-progressive. It is worth noting that both individual and social improvements cannot only be ensured by feelings of satisfaction; dissatisfaction, uneasiness and even sometimes rage stir up new pursuits. Where there is no pursuit, the easiness that is provided by cognitive balance and social adaptation strengthens the intellectual comfort.

If individuation refers to a discredit of collective mindset and a glorification of individualism only, the ideological perspectives get involved; and this aforementioned process is regarded as good and positive for some and wrong and negative for others. Those who regarded it as good and positive claim the human who was impersonalized by religion, history and tradition has gained a personality with the help of modernity. The Cartesian approach that favors self-conscience thinking has turned cognitive activities into the meaning and purpose of an individual’s existence. The separation of heart and mind has an utmost importance within the process of the individuation of human. The broken unity of heart and mind by glorifying the mind has, in a way, accelerated the scholarly studies and positively influenced the scientific improvements; and yet, on the other hand, the heart that adjusts and regulates the mind has become a nostalgia that was left behind in the literary, theological and moral books. Science which is an act of construction in its essence has given a new meaning and content to the human’s self-representations by the help of both Cartesian philosophy and the influence of rationalism and positivism. As the self-comprehension has been favored, the thoughts about tradition, religion, law, ethics and humans have been reimagined with the new model of self. Consequently, as the information produced intellectually by experiment and observation has been deified, the value of the mind has increased; this situation which has intensified the strength of self has rendered the individuation as a phenomenon that is suitable for human dignity. However, as this new world that was built upon the scientific mind only has imposed individuation upon humans, the incidents of anemia, loneliness, depression and suicide have been increased. It is worth noting that, until the 1950s, psychology was a discipline that would rather prioritize pathological cases. The purpose of the prominence of existentialist, humanistic and positive psychology movements after the 1950s and the approaches that emphasize heart and values such as emotional intelligence after the 1980s is to compensate the damages that has been done by over-individuation. Let us not forget that the phenomenon of individuation forms a new shape in line with the changing conditions. As the self-representations change, worries, fears, hopes, dreams and desires of the humans differ. Viewed in this light, it can be understood that this self-perception imposed by the changing world causes humans to individualize more. In this sense, it seems worth pointing out that there is a boom in self-respect. The direct or indirect use of the self-respect as a variable in psychological studies from 1960s to 2000 supports the argument of a speculative evolution of individuation towards selfishness. Not only in scientific studies but also in every environment such as family school and media, being an individual has been favored so much so that non-individual humans has been perceived as weak and pitiful creatures who did not complete their intellectual and emotional evolution or, to put it mildly, did not find themselves yet. The tension between the self-representation of an individualized human and the self-representation of a non-individualized human has naturally eased off in favor of those who are individualized. However, it should be noted that the individuation as being a person of community has gained popularity specifically amongst the rational-thinking religious individuals. Be that as it may, there have always been those who resist individuation by prioritizing collective spirit. While some of the resistants address their oppositions on a discursive level whereas some on a behavioral level, it can be said that some of them are individualized to a certain extent. That is because the self-representation offered by the outside world unavoidably finds a place in the ego/I system.

It seems more accurate to incline towards an approach which suggests that the individualized human prefers to define himself with his self-perception and personality perception rather than his social belongings. Even though these social belongings bring a sense of familiarity and security, they also instigate prejudices, discrimination and conflict. In line with this thought, those who seek superiority and absolute emancipation in these social belongings such as ethnocentrism and particularism always prefer to come forward with their identities rather than their personalities. As in traditional societies, the religious identities whereas in modern societies, national identities have become the main factor, the humans’ emphases on belonging have differed in accordance with the changing self-representations to a certain extent. However, it can be suggested that social identities fueled by the sense of belonging have experienced a serious setback especially in the postmodern era. In the process of progression from traditionalism to modernism, and then from modernism to postmodernism, self-representations of humans alter and there is a fast change from collectivist awareness to individualism and then towards selfishness. It is worth emphasizing that all these judgments can be misleading as it involves over generalization. Not every person is selfish, an egoist and a narcissist. Yet, as the individuation of modern human has become apparent, the selfishness of postmodern human has turned into an observable tendency.

It is significant to underline this fact: humans have not undergone a physiological change and transformation. In that sense, we cannot speak of a physiological mutation. That being said, can we claim that humans had been or still have been experiencing an emotional and mental change and transformation? In the process of progression from traditionalism to modernism and postmodernism, did the worldviews, the understandings of life and the value judgments of humans transform? Chasing the answers of these questions has an utmost importance for understanding the individualized or the new human.

In a fashion from general to specific, in order to examine the individual reflections of sociological changes, it would be functional to start with the concept of zeitgeist.

According to Urie Bronfenbrenner who suggested ecological systems theory with the influence of Lev Vygotsky and Kurt Lewin, an individual is shaped by mutual interaction with physical, social and cultural environments. In regard to this approach, human development has five intertwined systems as “microsystem”, “mesosystem”, “exosystem”, “macrosystem” and “chronosystem”. Within this mindset, individual development is influenced by the attitude of the parents, the occupation of the family and the people that are in communication with the family as well as social beliefs, values, traditions, ideologies, technological developments and wars. Particularly, as the concepts of time and space lose their meanings in a world that turned into a global village, predominant cultures and ideologies unilaterally influence others. İsmet Özel’s verse of “The death is deserted into the hands of dollar’s fluctuation in this era” has become rather meaningful within the context of ecosystem.

The ethos of this era goes hand-in-hand with methods of parenting and the attitude of parents. That being the case, no human is a stranger to the social cultural and sociopsychological influence of the understanding of life of the world and the society in which he grows up. Every human is a product of his era and culture. More clearly, the era in which we born influences our character more than our family. Moreover, the humans resemble to the era that they live in more than to their parents. In fact, the ethos of this era shapes the family and the parents to a certain degree in accordance with the conditions of that time and thus, the education of the children differs from one generation to another within this framework. When the children of yesterday become the parents of today, another process of change happens and this process increasingly continues in each generation. During this process, the technology becomes the engine power of change and transformation. As a matter of fact, each technology brings its own morals and worldview and every person young and old alike is influenced by this process to a certain extent. Evidently, the changing world transforms to humans with each passing day; however, they don’t realize this change from most of the time.

We can summarize the cognitive and emotional change of the human with three social structures and three accompanying human types.

The engine power in the process of change from traditional society to the modern and postmodern society is the technological improvements due to mechanization and digitalization. This situation has first increased rural to urban migration and fueled individuation and then individualism. This shift has naturally rendered a new structure and function of the family. The concepts of “religion”, “social identity/belongings” and “family” that carried the meaning of life in a traditional world have faced serious challenges in modernism and postmodernism. The first challenge was encountered in the institution of religion as in the concepts of God and revelation which are measures of truth in a traditional world. In the modern era, the concept of religion is partially replaced with reason (rationalism) and science (positivism) whereas in postmodern era, the individual has become the truth as the former concept of truth has crumbled. This process has evolved into a law and morals independent from religion and the prioritization of reason, science and finally the individual rights and freedoms.

As the influence of traditional religion has decreased, the perception and healing of sin has weakened while the search for spiritualism has become prominent. Even though this aforementioned spiritualism is partially affiliated with the religion, it has turned into a mere individual spiritualism that is against institutional and traditional religion, in general. Despite the different popularity rates, a pretty substantial increase in movements of religion-like, half-religious or non-religious spiritual teachings is observed in many places of the world, including Turkey. By so doing, a new emotional space is opened for the human that involves a transcendency with an atheist or enervated (humanist God or deistic God) image of God. While the humans of traditional era have been trying to become a perfect human being in the eyes of God, an image of ever smiling and loving God who makes life easier and puts individual pleasures first has gained popularity with the postmodernity. For instance, up until the 1950s, Christians were pointing out not only the loving but also the punishing character of Jesus; now, Jesus is a prophet only filled with love. The concept of “loving God” is spreading fast amongst the Muslims, as well. In recent years, the tendency towards deism among the youth can be regarded within the same context. In my opinion, our youth is not technically deist. They rather want to believe in a humanist God who doesn’t lay down the rules, restricts life, forbid the pleasures by always setting up the harams. This present image of God creates an image of a powerful friend who is a loving, merciful protector that supports every creature he ever created. This is an important aspect: the change in the image of God paves the way for experiencing worldly pleasures for humans to their hearts’ desire. Within this framework, Philippe Ariés brings the concept of “forbidden death” to the forth in a pleasure-centered life that came about with the modernism. Whereas Bauman emphasizes that there appears to be a thought and a passion that dictates instant pleasure amongst the seemingly postmodern humans, as a delayed pleasure equals an unsatisfied pleasure. The search for sexual freedom and having no sexual boundaries fall under this category. According to Bauman who states modern and postmodern human is never absolutely free, a human is only free in religion criticism and sexual freedom. Actually, sexual freedom is not possible without the criticism of religion. The rise in the hetaerism and pathological sexual orientation, the decrease in marriages and having children, the increase in the marriage age and the divorce rates are all worthy of drawing attention. Technological developments play a significant role in this matter.

Individuation of the human keeps the identity and existential crises alive, many humans young and old alike have gone through ideological and sexual crises. An explosion of the desires that has the motto of “You only live once, so live it to the fullest!” disrupts the cognitive and emotion balances of humans and this brings upon the search for the meaning of life in hedonic passions. The increase of the dismissive avoidant attachment style (I’m the only one who is good and worthy) in both romantic and friend relationships feeds a self-centered desire to live and then, this desire keeps encouraging dismissive avoidant attachments. As a matter of fact, this is a requirement of individualism. Additionally, the changes specifically in the space of freedom indicate to the point where individuation has reached. Traditional human prioritizes not being a slave, living independently and standing on his own feet; on the other hand, modern human’s main principle in life is “Nobody can make me do something I don’t want to do.” Those who have this principle demonstrate an individualistic behaviour. In the meantime, postmodern human states, “I do whatever I want, no one can stop me.” and thus, progresses towards selfishness and even narcissism with the help of self-representation imposed by the ethos of the era.

Since the current meaning and purpose of life differ from the traditional human’s definition of meaning and purpose, the things that make parents happy are not enough to make the new generation happy and this aggravates stress, anxiety and depression on the verge of unhappiness. At this point, we observe a height in the searches for happiness industry. To have a beautiful body, cosmetic surgeries, openness to experience and the desire to expose personal lifestyle (to be visible) intensify individualistic worldview.

Sharing selfies during circumambulating the Kaaba or stoning the devil on social media can be rendered as an unbearable lightness of being visible even in the moment of worship. Being visible is certainly not limited to the places of worship. New experiences, new relationships, appealing tables, bedroom images, photos of intimate poses with spouses or significant others can only become meaningful and valuable in the instant when shared with others. Each like from the followers has the affect of positive reinforcement and thus, the posts that are similar to most reinforced posts has been increasing. The phrase “I think therefore I am” has turned into “I am visible therefore I am”. Is seems as if the digitalized individual falls into an existential crisis if he is not visible. This has been a direct consequence of an imposed thought of self-representation by this era. However, visibility is not solely sufficient, it strengthens the individual’s existence when his posts are being viewed, followed and approved. The desire to be visible and liked feeds the development of individual media instead of traditional media so much so that humans have become the producers, programmers, content creators and presenters of their own media each passing day. In virtual platforms where what is humanely valuable and important is all in a tumble, people who have a lot of followers are being watched and admired.

Digital culture brings its own morals as new behavioral patterns such as scrolling on social media (liking, watching, sharing posts, waiting for likes etc.) family, friendship and work environments; even while waiting the red light have emerged. At this time, phenomena such as being stuck between privacy and visibility, struggling between freedom and security, increasing control because of the risk perception and becoming isolated in overprotected websites carry humans from individuation process into individualism. It is worth noting that one out of every ten person in Turkish society trusts another according to World Values Survey. Not trusting other people not only damages the social bonds but also intensifies the tendency to maintain human relations with a self-oriented agenda. That being said, not every human experience this tendency with same rigor and intensity. In reality, many people –intentionally or unintentionally - struggles between trust and distrust. Distrustful social environments naturally reinforce the feeling of insecurity.

At the beginning of 1900s, Muhammad Iqbal stated “Western man lost his heart and Eastern man lost his mind.” In 2000s, we are on our way to becoming a totally different world. As far as I’m concerned “Today’s human acts on instinct rather than mind and heart and instincts have no religion or morals.” Including sexuality and aggression, “id” (primitive and instinctive part of personality) is what makes human similar to other living creatures; in other words, every living creature has “id” (animalistic desire) that seeks after constant and unlimited satisfaction. On the other hand, “super ego” that can be partially defined as conscience and controls “id”s impulses develops after the internalization of religion, morals, values and culture. Postmodern human seems like temporarily suspended his superego. In this situation, humans have a hard time turning his knowledge into a behavior even though he knows what’s right and what’s wrong. As this struggle escalates, the boundaries between halal and haram get blurred. An individual with a weakened superego feels the influences of the culture he lives in and the religion he believes in less. As a consequence of selfishness, a depersonalization against beliefs, values, the environment and the nature pervades upon him. His self- representation takes shape according to the normalized explosion of instincts instead of a transfer of beliefs and traditions. Moreover, those who strictly control their instincts are regarded as “psychologically disturbed”. The projected humanist image of God preaches that it is a sin for humans to suppress their instincts, not satisfying them. These behaviors which are not illegal and yet, sinful and immoral are legitimized by saying “Allah created me this way. If I try to change the way I created, then, I would go against the commands of Allah.”

Hedonic desires and expectations are also observed in the more or less traditional, literate and modern religious individuals. It is worth emphasizing the survey findings which show that Turkish society is one of the most religious societies in the world and Turkish people try to live their religion not for this world but for the hereafter: one should live with the fewest rules and forbiddances while trying to earn the eternal happiness in Hereafter by worshipping. A human who do not give up on his pleasures starts to bless this world oriented life with the help of this era’s self-representation and makes hedonic desires his meaning and purpose of life. In this process, religious beliefs and practices are reduced to the afterlife most of the time. A part of over-individualized, selfish believing humans find themselves in a cognitive and emotional dilemma between religious beliefs and their behaviors (concerning earthly life). This dilemma can only be solved with either a change of behaviors in favor of beliefs or a differentiation of beliefs and behaviors in regards to essence and function. It is possible to change behaviours in favor of beliefs. However, it is only possible with the rejection of the imposed self-representation of this era. Apparently, American human model will continue to be popular as long as the adoption of neoliberal capitalism and Anglo-Saxon lifestyle persists.

The postmodern new human’s tendency of connecting with a spiritual humanist image of God makes it easy to pass from value-producing religiousness to psychological religionism. In this new world in which the fittest survives and the tendency of selfishness intensifies, there is a movement from identity towards self. This movement triggers both individuation and becoming selfish. It seems worth underlining that: individuation indicates a mutually exclusive dual human type that is both “a person of the community” and “a person despite the community”. If individuation leads to getting rid of the sociocultural pressures that form a human’s self and the longing for an unlived life that was lost in between social structures, an irreversible process takes place. These statements such as “I caught/didn’t catch myself”, “I want to realize myself”, “I’m uneasy because I couldn’t be myself” that we hear in our circles display both the pain of not becoming an individual and the torment of actually becoming one.

To summarize, when the individuation does not happen, it assimilates a human in the society whereas if it is overdone, it threatens the cultural continuity and social structure. For the sake of mental health, both of these situations are problematic. Besides, individuation and selfishness should be discerned from each other. Individualized human is focused on his own thoughts and feelings yet, a selfish human is a prisoner of his instincts and desires. This can lead to negative consequences in his essence and relations. An individuation that is not turned into selfishness is a healthy development as long as it cognitively, emotionally and behaviorally supports the awareness of being a person in a community.
 

* Ankara Social Sciences University Faculty of Theology