Self Reliance - The Lost Cultural Artifact

Self Reliance - The Lost Cultural Artifact 

Self-reliance has nearly become unspoken, even maligned to a degree in society at large. Self-reliance is ofttimes mocked by the left as “anti-government” and promoted by the right to the point where the only things a baby needs are bootstraps. Self-reliance is critical to independence and from independence comes freedom of person, and by extension, freedom of thought. So self-reliance is a gift we can give to all people, a little at first and more as knowledge and resources allow. It is neither to be assumed to be innate nor to be assumed to be absent, it is something to nurture, or to acquire in ourselves. The government could be a part of its delivery, too often, however; the quest for power inhibits the extension of self-reliance by the government.

Self-reliance as a cultural artifact has left Canadian society in much the same way as the “pioneer spirit” has. The pioneer spirit, the willingness for a person to enter the wilderness and shape the land by the sweat of their brow into a productive enterprise absent the trappings of civilization, was a large part of the collective Canadian psyche pre-1960. The whole pioneer spirit entity had as large components self-reliance, do it yourself and independence; to be a pioneer has as reality these components by virtue of the physical realities of pioneer life. The local midwife was the neighbour that rode a horse 15 miles in a snowstorm to deliver your baby OR as often as not, was your husband. Pioneers were forced by their chosen life course to find their own solutions, to be self-reliant. The narrative until 1960 supported this pioneering reality as a quality, as a cultural component.

Since 1960 there has been collectivization in Canadian society, granted with some positive outcomes, but at the near annihilation of self-reliance as a cultural artifact. One can contemplate self-reliance as a meme in many ways, a way of "being" passed from one generation to the next.  Self-reliance has been attacked by the migration in the general narrative away from independence as a virtue, to a narrative the increasingly directs people to find a solution from society. The seeking of solutions from each other, neighbour helping neighbour is generally a good thing, the relationship is pure functionality, uncorrupted if you will, human by humanity.

The challenge comes, however, when the narrative drives people to self-serving institutions, in main created by or supported by government legislation.  The nature of our political system coupled with the migration to collectivism generates a pernicious circumstance where people become increasingly dependent, and with dependence comes subservience. It is subtle in execution and insidious by nature. Little by little, each year, fewer choices are our own.

You see, the government always has the choice to liberate, to grant self-reliance but rarely does. Contemplate our medical system. Ask yourself, why do we have a shortage of medical services and no government-sponsored self-diagnosis websites? Or ask yourself why is the process for getting the 10th same medical prescription the same as the first? Ask yourself, why are we required to have a prescription at all?  When you come up with the quick “obvious“ answer; please ask again.  

Medical care is only one place where there could be more self-reliance, there are many places in society where the extension of more judgment to the individual should exist in the context of personal choice, but more, however, more self-direction is needed so that people can exercise themselves in their best interest. 

Click Here for my Professional Website

Law, Legislation and Liberty - THE PARADOX OF THE INDIVIDUAL & THE COLLECTIVE

Law, Legislation and Liberty - THE PARADOX OF THE INDIVIDUAL & THE COLLECTIVE

Want More Ideas on ORGANISATION - CLICK HERE
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Individualism, as a concept, beyond the reality that individuals exist within a group or community, has, in part, found its origins in the protestant privilege to be one’s own conduit to god. This comment is made in a value-neutral context, that is to say, individualism was given a forum due to the empowerment of the individual in protestant worship modalities, relative to the centralized modality of Catholicism and other religions. The concept of an individual as an ideal also found support in the enlightenment movement, where it was fashionable to construct one’s own map of reality away from the church and traditional norms. To an extent, Stoicism, as a byproduct of the need to be free of human want, in this case, the needing for typical social interactions, has served to shore the other contributing factors to becoming an individual.  

With the advent of mass media a homogenization of society began to occur, the individual at once gained access to a larger volume of information to feed individualism, however, the communitization of the general societal narrative resulted in the perception of the Individual being distilled down to perhaps a dozen stereotypes – a circumstance that had “character type” and “Individual” becoming synonymous. Individualism incurred a challenge with the escalation of media influence; in much the same way that the homogenization of theology had done in earlier times.

Individualism tends to be challenged in the general discourse of humanity, as Individuals become challenged they seek support from others, and from there a collective within a given society begins to form. As the collective coalesces around an imperative or common desire, the organization begins to demand a degree of uniformity – and so, uniformity and Individualism are inversely proportionate or at least inverse to one another – proportionality is affected by what drove the coalescence at the outset. Oft times, like the coalescence of individuals to a collective takes place in the face of extreme human conditions, where the group is highly dependent or a unified front, hazing mechanisms are utilized “break down” the individual, to effect a state of merged egos or perhaps a “common ego”. The individual is then wholly defined by their association with a group.

It may be said in general terms, that a commonage derived from like-minded individuals, who have coalesced in a common interest or cause finds a generally healthier state of being, than, a commonage formed of conscription and hazing. The commonage of free accumulation finds common action by responding to environmental realities from a core set of beliefs; the commonage that forms from conscription finds common action at the behest of a central power entity. The commonage of fee accumulation is very difficult to corrupt, as ideals inform action, and the association began in a healthier place, in a place of intellectual commonality. By contrast, centralized power, absent support of the individual expression is inherently corrupting – as the core of the centralized power always works to its self-interest, as those subordinated seek to further their lot through acquiring favour from the central power and work around the central power for selfish and practical reasons.  

It is important to note, that conscription takes many forms in the creation of a commonage, the indoctrination of children to a given belief structure is a form of conscription. Conditioning is a form of conscription. Our very existence is conscription, by way of example, we are all conscripts of the human race.

Individualism, or the act of developing one’s sense of oneself as an independent entity, and the societal act of provisioning the discovery process to build an individual, in no way impairs collective action, it serves to diversify the informing of collective action. There is a common misperception that Individualism and Collectivism are resident at opposite ends of a continuum; the fact is however, they are mandatory companions existing as an entity. The question is, under what conditions has the collective coalesced and by what means it is being maintained – how these questions are answered determines the health of a collective. A collective that permits individual expression and functions under a premise of common ideas results in a reverse hierarchy, a collective that emerges out of conscription of one type or another results in a hierarchy that leads to a central power.

When the individual is co-opted by the collective, thought that panders to leadership emerges – often effecting “group think” and disastrous tangents in the human enterprise. When the individual within a collective is nurtured, critical thought governs individual action, and by extension, thought governs the collective – inherent in this reality is diversification of power.  

             

“The natural effort of every individual to better “their” own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations” Adam Smith