Audio of the below post:
The not-so-recent problem facing American society is that of group identity. The group identity movement has put forth a showing strong in numbers in the past few years, but make no mistake, this infectious and virulent ideology has been nesting among Americans for decades. It originated subconsciously, ultimately reaching the conscious, as many subconscious notions eventually do. From there, the presence of an opposition- those supporting the idea of the individual- has produced an anger masked as justice. Hence the phrase “social justice warrior”.
Now, ironically, it is those who are not oppressed in any regards who are “stepping up” to speak on behalf of the oppressed, coincidentally looping themselves in with groups of “lower class”. We now see university students, even, and especially, from top universities speaking out on behalf of their oppression, which is usually imposed upon them by the top 1%. As if the success of those at the top of the economic totem pole is taking away the rights of Ivy League students. The fact that it is these students at the forefront of the group identity movement is baffling, as it is these same students who not only have more rights than anyone who has ever lived, but are set up to become a part of that top 1% they are so offended by. It’s not opinion that students at the best universities in the world (which is a lot of universities and a lot of students) are being offered success on silver platter, the only cost of accepting it being hard work and sacrifice of a degree much less than what is required of those in other positions. We absolutely know that a strong educational resume reciprocates.
The mission of this post-modern movement is to create a society, and probably a government too, that allows for no achievement unless it is for the benefit of the group. The individual is to be relegated to a foot-soldier simply marking time unless they adopt this ideology of universal equity (equality of outcome). After all, to the holders of this ideology, it is the achievement of the group that will trickle down to the individual. However, we know that this is not true. This ideology has been tried many times throughout history, including in the 20th century.
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson expresses the 20th century examples of this implementation in a 2017 New Year’s letter:
A close reading of 20th century history indicates, as nothing else can, the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. It is only the individual, after all, who suffers. The group does not suffer – only those who compose it. Thus, the reality of the individual must be regarded as primary if suffering is to be regarded seriously. Without such regard, there can be no motivation to reduce suffering and, therefore, no respite. Instead, the production of individual suffering can and has and will be again rationalized and justified for its supposed benefits for the future and the group.
As Peterson mentions, the alleged group achievement not only has no positive impact on the individual level, but metaphorically and possibly literally kills the individual. If group identity is universally implemented, those who speak out and attempt any individual achievement have and will be vilified and socially and legally punished, because this achievement is viewed as some sort of “privilege” or oppressive to others.
Group identity roots itself in assigning people levels of oppression, which has become a competition of who is the most oppressed. Then a few who’ve deemed themselves leaders speak on behalf of all who have been assigned a level of oppression, even though many never asked, nor want to be part of such a group. Levels of oppression include race, sex/gender, health, wealth, education, and so much more. The damn shame of it all is that those who fit in one or a combination of these domains, yet refuse to accept this post-modern way thinking, are ignored- just as the sound and peaceful cohort (majority, in many cases) has been before.
At the bottom of this issue is the demand for more rights, rather than the adoption of necessary responsibility. The post-modernists have, and will continue, to demand more rights, even though they have more rights than anyone who has ever lived- all-the-while making sure to have no gratitude towards the sacrifices made by their predecessors that led to the rights they have and use today. They demand the right to “safe spaces”, they demand the right to equality of outcome in all domains, and they demand the right to not be offended, which is perhaps the most abhorrent of all their demands. Additionally, they understand and rejoice in the fact that these rights, if given, come at the expense of those who do not meet their criteria for oppression- which usually ends up being well-off white males.
Make no mistake, I am not denying the existence of suffering, and I am definitely not denying that some people suffer more than others. Suffering in any capacity is tragic, but it is a part of life. The antidote to this post-modern ideology seems to be something like recognizing yours and others’ suffering, not blaming it on anyone else, and most importantly, carrying that suffering. Recognize it as responsibility, accept that responsibility, and then try to reduce it, not by demanding more rights, but by mediating the actual problem.
It’s hard to pinpoint where and how this seeding ideology took form, but it’s here now, and that’s what matters. I think that the antidote is straightforward, and thanks to people like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and more, the conversation has begun, and there’s been more than prevalent support for it. Even so, there is more conversation to be had. As with everything, it starts with the individual. While you may be outcast, have the conversation, and keep working towards your own achievement, because achievement at the individual level will lead to a better life for all.
Tom Fusillo, DO, MS, MHA 