Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, a new morality has arisen from the belly of Enlightenment thinking, which in a number of respects is stricter, more vagarious, more irrational, and more hypocritical than the prior religious morality, which the
Enlightenment sought to obliterate in order to set people free.
The Enlightenment tradition, the ideology of Reason, was a persistent attempt to squeeze life into logic and theories. It placed all symbolism, mysticism, fiction, and poetry secondary. But this is exactly the kind of discourse that allows us the ability to respond to the uncertainty of life with creation and individuality and to find words that resonate with the Other.
That’s how uncertainty turned into fear, and the only psychological
means available to combat that fear were narcissism and an endlessly rampant regulatory discourse.
Society is—it’s hard to ignore—increasingly bogged down in an endless proliferation of rules. On the one hand, such rules are imposed by the
government, but on the other hand, there is also a call for more rules—a hyper-strict morality—from the population itself.
With the rise of the woke culture, society fell prey to implicit and explicit rules that made every detail of human interaction more precarious.
#MeToo movement, students were taught how to flirt legally and
compliantly freshmen initiations were subjected to increasingly strict
regulations.Sweden introduced a law stating that sex is only legal if the parties involved give their consent in advance via a signed contract, nude figures of the paintings by Flemish masters were no longer allowed to be posted on social media, and Netflix introduced a rule stipulating that eye contact between employees should not last longer than five seconds and that employees are not allowed to ask for each other’s phone numbers without asking permission for asking first (!).
The new norm has become so stringent that even suggesting that there is a physical difference between a man and a woman can be considered a violation of sexual integrity.
The Black Lives Matter movement is captured in this trend as well. The tendency toward increasingly exhaustive standards with respect to racism intensified to little productive end: The chances that such rules truly contribute to the overcoming of the narcissistic superiority feelings that are involved in racism is, in fact, rather small.
The climate movement has also given rise to a new category of crimes: environmental. To the point that using a wood-burning stove, eating meat, or living off-grid in the countryside are considered environmental violations, environmental ideology has been taken to such an extreme that it has become opposed to that which it originally aspired to: getting back to nature.
Environmental violations are also rather selective and inconsistent in their strictness. For example, reducing one’s carbon footprint is taken to extremes, while there is remarkable leniency regarding energy consumption through internet use (which is as high as the energy consumption from all air traffic combined) and the “mining” of Bitcoins (which is as high as the energy consumption of an average Western European country). And also the environmental damage caused by mining ores for batteries for electric cars is rarely discussed.
This sheds a different light on social phenomena such as #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, the climate movements, and the coronavirus crisis. They are related to real problems, but those problems are not the real reason for the existence for these phenomena. They arise mainly from the pressing need among the population for an authoritarian institution that provides direction to take the burden of freedom and the associated insecurity off their shoulders.
Bookmarks