A reflection of Identity in a globalized world: how to promote a harmonized society

http://www.jgoodwin.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/theory-network.png

The questions “who are we? And who am I? And who am I amongst who are we?” are philosophically asking about our being and existence in term of relation and connection. Identity is definitely related to an action of subject recognizing an object, which is about how to put meaning to the symbols appeared as the presence of being. But in the context of human being, it is not merely only what can we perceive about others, but also what and how make us staying connected with each other in harmony. Regarding to this, thus identity may become a crucial issue in our daily live, because in this modern digital era, the boundary have been vanishing slowly. The world is going to be flat, and in the terminal phase there are supposed to be no neutral stance left. This happened because external market reality already disturbs fixed pictures of the self. Capitalism nowadays differs from prior years, which has radically changed, for instance people’s experience of work (Sennett 2000). This society will stumble upon vicious ambiguities meanwhile searching in between two stance points of the truths. One ego is nakedly facing the other egos for revealing the truth.

As in anti-essentialism point of view as explained in Baker (2003), “...identities are not things that exist; they have no essential or universal qualities. Rather, they are discursive constructions, the product of discourses or regulated ways of speaking about the world. It means, identities are constituted, made rather than by representations, notably language.” but the questions is back to what Sennett (2000) has opened for discussion, “how I discovered the person I really am”. From the post-modern perspective, the death of grand narratives will be followed with the disorientation of society (e.g. anomie) and the continuation losing of appetite about sameness in modernity will consequently affect the identity. And it should be replace in searching for a new moral standard in order to define whether something is right or wrong, and this formerly are known as social structure. From this, the underlying thinking that embedded in culture should shape the way of living, which refers to interaction in reciprocity understanding. The new constitution of identity should begin with the idea not just “I consume, therefore I am!”, this sense of identity move into the idea “I share, therefore I am!”.

Sharing activity partakes in consuming on different things. Sharing activity not just consuming but also producing in the same time, it is bidirectional. This changing of how people do happens in workplace, home, market, etc., will refract into our personal lives and relationships. It happens because we can experience 24-hours a day living without a break, with staying connected people might exchange information with other people from different countries, in different languages and cultures. In this virtual platform, now people are freely and easily to judge something that based on their common sense, their consciousness in order to fulfill their own preferences towards goodness. Thus, what am i depends on what people’s share, so that I can consume. But still, the central tenet here is about “I am”, “I consciously prefer to be”, and it is about being, about identity, and about ego.

Harmonized society has the sense of transformative power in itself. Although contains static meaning, but in the time and space context it should be a progressive towards processing of creating dynamic narrative. And how to promote this concept, it is a matter of sosio-epistemology. Jürgen Habbermas using the word später Kapitalismus (late capitalism) to identify the society nowadays. This condition is marked by the presence of wherever commodification of public space. It means, there is no room at all for individual to freely express their living according to the self. Government as an authority entities cannot freely regulate or provide this spatial context anymore, because the system only allow a kind of relationship, which is based on laissez-faire economic and political context. And everything is going to be reduced into private territory, and may be sellable/buyable (even emotion). This structure that dismantled everyone from their belief in grand narratives (the idea which offers the ultimate truth), and create a new personality that can eclectically assemblage ideas according to which world they are living. Of course the existence the virtual room instead of reality, start echoing new ambiguities with light of speed alike transformative power. Simply, this will make people confuse with the right or wrong moral standard about situation they faces (living in the paradox, because everything is seemingly to be right). Thus, the mixture of conflicted ideas have latent paradoxes embedded in old-fashioned harmonious society, it is a disharmony. And it means that instability has its own root in every action to stabilize an establishment.

From the discussion above, we can prematurely propose a solution to the potential danger of this transforming modern society, therefore we can promote “I’ve shared, therefore I think!”. In the spirit of cogito ergo sum, we need to take a break to think and then composing strategy to facing this world—real and virtual. According to Habermas (1976), we should engage praxis, a rational communicative way, to make a new discursive action embedded in society by its culture. This perhaps might response to Giddens and Hutton (2000) proposals, that the global system needs more governance if individuals and core social and cultural needs are not to be diminished and swallowed up by the new trends. It is the necessity of global civil society on which global regulation and government can be based. In other words, it is the demand of the new narrative which universally works. The praxis of pursuing a new discourse perhaps can solve this hermeneutics problem, which is idea shifting of perspective, that searching every similarity in differences (problem of singularity), into trying to accept the differences from others, thus a firm understanding will be a new narratives, so that person can coping with every unique individuals (problem of plurality). This action embracing the idea of openness and voluntarily engaging in process of understanding, may avoid a danger of devastating ideology or dogmatic conflicts because of absolutism, fundamentalism or even totalitarianism as a political power to force people accepting the idea as an ultimate truth. Thus, in this voyeuristic and exhibitionistic world, I wish we can still have a nook to understand the self among the other-selves.

References

Barker, Chris. 2003. Cultural Studies, Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hardiman, F. Budi. 2009. Menuju Masyarakat Komunikatif: Ilmu, Masyarakat, Politik dan Postmodernisme Menurut Jürgen Habermas. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Hutton, Will, and Anthony Giddens. 2000. Global Capitalism. New York: The New Press.

Sennett, Richard. 2000. "Street and Office: Two Sources of Identity." In Global Capitalism, by Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens, 175-212. New York: The New Press.