Culture and Self-Negation

--part1_186.141635a1.2b4e5dcd_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Human beings have a need or desire for a meta narrative--whatever that
meta narrative might be. In the United States, we wish to believe that we are
"one nation" (under god). Human beings within a culture need to feel that
they are united or connected to one another.

Persons within a particular culture may feel united by virtue of their
belief in a certain idea. This is a question of group psychology. To be in a
certain group is to feel that one shares certain ideas with others.

A good way to get at the "group belief system" is to pose the question:
"What would make everyone in the group angry if you said it in public?"

A meta narrative is a cultural belief, which means it is something to
be shared. This is different from a personal opinion.

In the United States, for example, most persons belief that "All
persons should vote and participate in the democratic process." We believe in
"democracy." This is a meta narrative that holds us together.

If someone went on television and said, "I don't vote and don't believe
that voting is necessary," people would be angry at that person. As
Americans, we believe that one is supposed to vote and participate in the
democratic process. Peter Berger used to talk about "of course" statements.

"Of course" statements are the meta-narratives of a group. These are
ideas that everyone believes are true. Persons within a group barely are
capable of articulating the idea (or ideas) that hold them together. The
unconscious belief systems are those that create a sense of "oneness."

Academic groups have meta narratives. These are the "shared truths"
that everyone is supposed to believe in if you want to be a member of that
group, to feel you are "at one" with others in the group.

People do not articulate the ideas that create the sense of oneness
within the group. However, if a person is within that group and does not
share the fantasy that holds the group together, persons sense this. Members
of the group feel uncomfortable. The individual is not "one of us," not "our
kind."

This person is experienced as an "infidel" or "nonbeliever." The
infidel or nonbeliever is someone who disrupts the sense of "oneness" within
the group, the shared fantasy that holds it together.

In recent American history, a "splitting" process has occurred. This is
what is meant by the "death of grand narratives." Three television stations
disintegrated into five-hundred.

Dissatisfaction with the meta-narrative of a particular group leads to
the development of another meta-narrative.This is why academic groups have
"divisions" or "sections."

Eventually, the continuation of the splitting process (culture or group
fragmentation) might result in "individuality," which means that each person
holds his or her own opinion and has no need to identify with a meta
narrative.

However, if one speak of the "individual," then one might be excluded
from the academic group, because the current meta narrative is that "the
subject does not exist," but is only constituted by the "other" of culture.

To say that "the subject does not exist" is a meta-narrative that
arises when one gives too much power to the "great other" of culture in the
hope that one can fuse with an omnipotent entity that will "live on" in time
(the "superorganic").

Persons who read and know a lot (who are deeply to language) tend to
identify with "culture." They seek omnipotence through oneness with the meta
narrative of history, civilization, etc. By overestimating the power of
culture in the quest for omnipotence, the power of the subject is diminished.

Too great an attachment to culture acts to negate the self. Therefore,
one says, "The subject does not exist," or "There is no other but the other,"
or "The self is culturally constituted."

Paradoxically, then, one attains a sense of self through negation of
the self--by virtue of "identification" with the meta narrative of culture.
One denies the existence of individuality in order to embrace a fantasy of
omnipotence that elevates "civilization" to a position superordinate to the
self.

The idea of "hegemony" constitutes the fulfillment of a wish.

Best regards,

Richard K.

Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
Director, Library of Social Science

--part1_186.141635a1.2b4e5dcd_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>      Human beings have a need or desire for a meta narrative--whatever that meta narrative might be. In the United States, we wish to believe that we are "one nation" (under god). Human beings within a culture need to feel that they are united or connected to one another. 
 
      Persons within a particular culture may feel united by virtue of their belief in a certain idea. This is a question of group psychology. To be in a certain group is to feel that one shares certain ideas with others. 
 
      A good way to get at the "group belief system" is to pose the question: "What would make everyone in the group angry if you said it in public?" 
 
      A meta narrative is a cultural belief, which means it is something to be shared. This is different from a personal opinion. 
 
      In the United States, for example, most persons belief that "All persons should vote and participate in the democratic process." We believe in "democracy." This is a meta narrative that holds us together. 
 
      If someone went on television and said, "I don't vote and don't believe that voting is necessary," people would be angry at that person. As Americans, we believe that one is supposed to vote and participate in the democratic process. Peter Berger used to talk about "of course" statements. 
 
      "Of course" statements are the meta-narratives of a group. These are ideas that everyone believes are true. Persons within a group barely are capable of articulating the idea (or ideas) that hold them together. The unconscious belief systems are those that create a sense of "oneness." 
 
      Academic groups have meta narratives. These are the "shared truths" that everyone is supposed to believe in if you want to be a member of that group, to feel you are "at one" with others in the group. 
 
      People do not articulate the ideas that create the sense of oneness within the group. However, if a person is within that group and does not share the fantasy that holds the group together, persons sense this. Members of the group feel uncomfortable. The individual is not "one of us," not "our kind." 
 
      This person is experienced as an "infidel" or "nonbeliever." The infidel or nonbeliever is someone who disrupts the sense of "oneness" within the group, the shared fantasy that holds it together. 
 
      In recent American history, a "splitting" process has occurred. This is what is meant by the "death of grand narratives." Three television stations disintegrated into five-hundred. 
 
      Dissatisfaction with the meta-narrative of a particular group leads to the development of another meta-narrative.This is why academic groups have "divisions" or "sections." 
 
      Eventually, the continuation of the splitting process (culture or group fragmentation) might result in "individuality," which means that each person holds his or her own opinion and has no need to identify with a meta narrative. 
 
      However, if one speak of the "individual," then one might be excluded from the academic group, because the current meta narrative is that "the subject does not exist," but is only constituted by the "other" of culture. 
 
      To say that "the subject does not exist" is a meta-narrative that arises when one gives too much power to the "great other" of culture in the hope that one can fuse with an omnipotent entity that will "live on" in time (the "superorganic"). 
 
      Persons who read and know a lot (who are deeply to language) tend to identify with "culture." They seek omnipotence through oneness with the meta narrative of history, civilization, etc. By overestimating the power of culture in the quest for omnipotence, the power of the subject is diminished. 
 
      Too great an attachment to culture acts to negate the self. Therefore, one says, "The subject does not exist," or "There is no other but the other," or "The self is culturally constituted." 
 
      Paradoxically, then, one attains a sense of self through negation of the self--by virtue of "identification" with the meta narrative of culture. One denies the existence of individuality in order to embrace a fantasy of omnipotence that elevates "civilization" to a position superordinate to the self. 
 
      The idea of "hegemony" constitutes the fulfillment of a wish. 
 
Best regards, 
 
Richard K. 
 
Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D. 
Director, Library of Social Science</HTML>

--part1_186.141635a1.2b4e5dcd_boundary--