Depersonalism and Industrialism

Depersonalism and Industrialism

       “If you want to be an individual, go elsewhere!”

The Industrial System is a web of contradiction. Most notable of all its hypocritical attributes is its apparent social focus on individualism whilst simultaneously promoting a way of being that we may call Depersonalism. Note, we have not used the extant noun ‘depersonalisation’, for that describes the action of removing the qualities which make one human; Industrial Society ensures individuals never receive the opportunity to develop that which makes them an individual, thus it pursues a policy of Depersonalism. Depersonalism is the way in which the Industrial System breeds legions of cogs to perform near-identical functions in its vast array of industries, cogs whom we may call the Underman (as opposed to “subhuman”, for we are discussing variable attributes as opposed to objective and inherent value). The contradiction is such that the people are encouraged to disabuse themselves of any notion of collective identity or loyalty, and to pursue their whims and desires, and to demarcate themselves as ‘the other’. Thus, society consists of masses (‘Mass Society’, The Myth of Progress §5) of people who are simultaneously atomised and aggressively uniform; without collective identity or that which makes them human; no loyalty yet no personality. We see this most acutely in Western societies where group identity and loyalty are frowned upon, but the reality is that we see no better a situation in part of the world deemed more ethnocentric or religiously united; these factors are merely cosmetic loyalties that conform to the bourgeois standard of patriotism.

To demonstrate the degree to which Depersonalism is enforced by the Industrial System, we must first define the essence of the term. Prior to that, however, we must examine that which constitutes personality. It is not, as is falsely claimed, the way in which one self-identifies; society is full of people creating seemingly eccentric labels to describe their political, religious or sexual beliefs, beliefs supported rarely by sincerity that are but mere words used to appear difference – they constitute the Aesthetic of Individuality. To truly understand a person’s personality, we ought really to look at the fundamental underpinnings of their lives – their actions. Where do they live? What do they wear? What hobbies do they pursue? What’s their work? Amongst other factors. For we gain far greater insight into a person’s personality by judging their actions above their words. And by judging their actions – “their” meaning those of society – we generally find awkwardly uniform answers. The vast majority of people inhabit identical (or similar) houses and apartment blocks, usually in urban centres; they dress the same, they watch the same mass entertainment, they behave identically of a weekend and, perhaps most crucially, they do similar if not identical work. It is this latter point, the work that one does, from which all other aspects of personality are downstream. For this is the part of one’s life for which one is groomed from childhood; funnelled through uniform schooling to achieve uniform qualifications to pursue uniform ‘ambition’ to obtain uniform employment for uniform reward.

The reader may find this position to be somewhat untenable on first reading, for one can identify a multitude of employment types that, at least perceptibly, show strong signs of difference. How can reconcile the difference between a car manufacturer and an insurance broker within the framework of uniformity? Quite simply because they are really not that different. The average “worker”, to use that detestable phrase, performs the same kind of task(s) regardless of the industry he’s employed within. Take our example of the car manufacturer and the insurance broker; the average, low-level employee of a large car manufacturer does not build a vehicle from start to finish. The most efficient means through which a car can be produce is for multiple people to perform limited, isolated tasks along a production line. Therefore, a worker may spend his day fixing windscreen wipers to bonnets, or, as is more likely, pushing buttons that direct machines to do it. He sees neither the beginning nor end of the product, instead performing isolated and highly repetitive button-pressing. Similarly, the average low-level worker at an insurance broker does not have any involvement in the design of the product, the logistics in creating it or the selling of it to a customer; instead, the average worker performs a small section of this process. It may be logging sales thereof onto computer databases or taking calls from claimants which are then passed to another cog for the secondary processes. Invariably, his work involves highly repetitive button-pressing. There are exceptions, of course, but even therein, highly repetitive and isolated processes will be found almost without exception. And it must also be asked to what extent these professions are legitimate endeavours, but that falls beyond the scope of this essay.

This concept of critiquing the uniformity and repetitiveness of modern Industrial Society’s employment bears notable similarity to Marx’s critique of modern work from the standpoint that it engenders alienation. Yet, our critique extends far beyond the effect this has on morale; for uniform output, the Industrial System requires uniform input, therefore the individual can never be permitted to gain attributes that make him such. Thus, the individual is taken from an extremely early age and channelled through uniform school systems whose stated aim is to produce useful cogs in the machine of this mode of production. Uniformity is promoted from an early age. This, then, has a further output affect on the people involved; their personalities may develop post-education for the first time, yet their lives (how they live, their hobbies etc.) are constructed around, therefore dictated by, the employment they partake in. This leaves little room for the development of individuality and, thus, we see the Underman – a cog in the Industrial System with no personality of individuality to speak of.

The notion of personality is irreconcilable with Industrialism. This mode of production requires systematic Depersonalism via a cradle-to-grave structure designed at every stage to produce and maintain cogs in a vast array of machines. In turn, it requires Mass Society and Overpopulation, both of which are anathema to personality – one does not possess an individual personality if millions of others in his locale are indistinguishable from him in almost every way.

The way in which we re-establish human personality is by totally abandoning the Industrial System and the consequences thereof. That means abandoning Mass Society and Overpopulation, also. By demolishing these concepts, we may construct human-scale communities built upon the principles of freedom of association and choice in line with the natural order (which precipitates the common good). In practical terms, that community would be rural for obvious reasons, and small enough to establish individuality whilst remaining large enough to be self-sufficient. Mass production and for-profit enterprise would be totally abandoned, and the production of what is essential for life would be undertaken by individuals freely choosing to pursue a particular process. In other words, a community has a handful of woodworkers, a farming family, a furniture maker or two, and then perhaps an apothecary, a priest, and some professional security personnel, amongst countless other essential functions that a community requires. Needless to say, large, corporate monstrosities would cease to exist, and each man would enjoy the proceeds of his own labour or service. In turn, this means the absence of mass-produced material frivolities that simply serve as accessories to define oneself as Underman. Therefore, recreational time – of which there may be significantly more in the post-Industrial age – may be spent pursuing the genuine interests of man, rather than the uniform “pastimes” currently fed to him by Industrial Society. Some may enjoy hunting or fishing, whilst others will find pleasure in shooting, archery, horse-riding or other sports, and others may philosophise or pursue a deeper communion with that which is spiritual – the recreational potential in the post-industrial age is truly limitless. If it can be conceived of and is consistent with the natural order, then it may be done. Furthermore, the way in which a community lives can be returned to individual autonomy in the post-industrial age. High-rise apartments of identical décor and dimension will be consigned to the dustbin of history – where they rightly belong – to be replaced by highly personalised and human-scale constructions.

The obvious practicality of this mode of living is evident simply on account of the fact that we are human beings. Our advanced consciousness and the great cognitive and physical disparities between individuals separate us from purely uniform and robotic animals like the bee or the ant, whilst our very nature as social creatures supports our ability to work together for the common good. The greatest misconception of human history is the notion than man requires tyrannical direction from government or the corporate industrialists in order to work together – this is a myth of Industrialism (both capitalist and communist) that requires an iron fist be used to enhance the efficiency of mass production. Instead, when left to his own devices, man recognises his need for community and, therefore, his responsibility to it. Oppressive structures are simply not required to ensure man acts according to this nature; does the wolf require a parliament, president, councils and all manner of corporate hierarchies to simply act as his instinct compels him? Obviously not, and that should rightly be considered a ridiculous question to pose. Why, therefore, do we suppose man requires these things in order to act as his instinct compels him?