I had originally intended, long before the time period now, to write up this article, but never really got down to it. It was, in large part, due to my incompetence at writing anything worthy of note nowadays, as well as the lack of possible research, and knowledge therefore, in such an area. Yet recently, I have been given inspiration as well from this post by ID Sojourner, and therefore I bring to you a broader consensus of what society is like nowadays, at least, in my humble opinion.

Allow me to express the fact that this will be a long post. If you wish to read this article for the usual otaku-related stuff and similar images, you can skip this right now. I know of quite a few folks who have expressed their reluctance to read articles beyond their comprehension attention span, and therefore I must warn you ahead that this article is meant for those with an expressive interest (or might have it) in reading what I have to say thoroughly.
 

Again, all the thoughts of this post are my own after what I have read in my elementary college courses as well as what I gather from observing people around the world, writing in their blogs, speaking with them via the Internet, and the like. Truthfully, the sample data is thus subjected to much debate, but I rather have some data to work with and debate its accuracy, than nothing to work with at all and spout potent rubbish. This essay is entirely something that represents my opinion of society today, and the ills that we ourselves have created, and inflicted upon ourselves.

Lastly, I try wherever I can to quote credible sources from whence I get my knowledge and information. It is not wise at all to link to Wikipedia, but it does serve as a good place to be linked to direct, quantifiable and justifiable sources of knowledge. Of course, the accuracy of information and data is almost always subject to controversial and constant scrutiny, but to embark on a fruitless journey of deciding whether all the information that we process through our subjective and frail minds on an objective basis is something like looking for the pot at the end of the rainbow. Hence, I believe I have said enough, and let us move on to the main topic.

**********

This is a painting by George Tooker, titled “Landscape with Figures”. In contrast with Karl Marx’s idea of economic inequality being the culprit of alienating the individual, Max Weber concludes instead that it is dehumanizing and pervasive bureaucracy that is the problem (Macionis, p106). Neither issue is expressively mentioned in this essay. Image thanks to the Feldman Gallery.

This essay might perhaps be more ideal for an academic paper with the question – “Globalization & Individuality – How has one affected the other in today’s context?” or “In your view, has the act of globalization destroyed the concept of individuality? Explain and elaborate your position.” Perhaps, it can even include the kind of question such as “As the world becomes smaller thanks to what we call globalization, has the individual also a smaller part to play as a unique person? What do you think, and why?”

Indeed, all these questions would raise the one fundamental query that we have been seeking, perhaps even subconsciously, for some time, or even since the introduction of industrialization in the early 19th century – are we losing our individuality?

Without looking first at what we might consider definitions of the concept of both globalization and individuality, it is difficult for me to proceed. Therefore, we must first look at the dictionary’s definitions, even if at times they are either begging the question, or perhaps downright not useful. With, however, at least somewhere to start, we might then be able to perform a better evaluation, and come up with a better definition of the terms.
 

Cambridge Dictionaries Online’s definition of the term states that it can be either “the increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries” or the result “when available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world” (owing to the act of globalization therefore and its consequences). Dictionary.com states 4 definitions taken from various sources, such as “to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide”, “to make global or worldwide in scope or application”, and “growth to a global or worldwide scale”. Thus, a working idea of the term “globalization” has been formed, of which we will turn to after addressing the concept of “individuality”.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online then goes on to provide two definitions of the term “individual”, where the first states that it is a term “belonging or relating to, or suitable for, people or things that are different or particular in some way”, while the second touches on “a person who thinks or behaves in their own original way”. AskOxford.com provides direct meanings for the term in question, stating that individuality can either mean “distinctive quality or character” or “separate existence”. Dictionary.com gives many varying possibilities as to the meaning of the term when used in different context, but generally touches on the same ground as mentioned by the first two dictionaries.

Therefore, we have come up with a propositional and working, as well as fitting, definition for each of the two aspects that we must touch on. It can be said then, that globalization “is the act of spreading something, whether a culture, object, ideal, or some such, to other parts of the world, gradually picking up in popularity and thus making the world similar all over”, while individuality “is the uniqueness of a person, that which makes him separate as an entity or existence that survives along with the rest of the world he exists in.”
 

An image of a factory and its workers in 1851. The workplace only became a definition of life thanks to industrialization. Image thanks to Daily Life Online.

So then, we come to the real question at hand after a lengthy but necessary discussion of the definitions – is globalization eliminating individuality? For this to be answered, we must look at the different aspects of society as we know it today and take into account some history of the world, both social and psychological in context. Keep in mind however that these factors all work in conjunction; by each reason of itself, it is contributing as a factor to the whole equation, but most of these aspects do combine for multiple and correlated effects. On their own, they may not be that devastating, perhaps localized in consequence, but their results can be seen as more than possibly being larger in scope than just the sum of their relations.

With that said, let us look first at the one place we are all familiar with – the workplace. Since its introduction in the early 19th century thanks to the advent of industrialization, it has been subject to a wealth of debates in the sociological sector as to its effects, or, as some might say, side effects. Indeed, the workplace introduced a new form of routine that hitherto most had been unused to, being peasants or farmers that tilled the fields daily. Consider – you once work as a farmer, harvesting with the seasons, working in tandem with nature, getting your well deserved seasonal breaks, and the like. Yet the coming of factories and industries forced you to work in one with dreary work hours, for perhaps 9 hours a day in what could be best described as pathetic conditions, and what you once considered rest as coming with the seasons no longer holds true. You are forced to adhere to a rigid timetable of rest and work, with your rest days now coming once a week (or even less for some) for perhaps the entire year.

Such work routine would doubtless have raised many cries of protest, and of course, factory employers resorted to rather mean tactics to ensure discipline. By the second and third generations of workers employed in industrial settings and urban cities, people had come to look upon the work week as a way of life instead of an abomination once forced upon their forefathers.
 

As in this picture titled “Deviated”, you can see that once someone does not conform to a certain standard, he or she usually stands out amongst the rest clearly, as does the red marble amongst all the blue. The original source of this image is unknown.

All well and good, but what does this have to do with the workplace and what we are discussing today? It is simple. When working in such surroundings, you are often thrown into a strange setting. You work with people that no longer are as familiar to you as your kin or as neighbors. A bunch of strangers thrown together working for a common goal, with only perhaps the “goal” (if it can even be called that) the only thing tying them together for the most part. In the typical office setting nowadays, indeed it does very much seem as though this is all that brings people together. Obviously, such a conglomerate of personalities inevitably brings clashes when even if only one person cannot conform to group ethics. Not only that, it also encourages alienation in the sense that, because of the “common goal”, and how specialized work is nowadays, it encourages people to only do the work they were assigned to do, and thus, once they have completed it, therein lies no further socialization, no further motivation to go beyond one’s own borders, both social and work-based. Why bother? You are earning your keep by doing your job (conscientiously, I might add), and do social relations, in such a specialized setting (note, I emphasized the word “typical” earlier for a reason) actually proceed to give you more rewards than what you can possibly achieve? It is more work for less reward once past the concept of your salary, like a U-shaped curve that goes back down on the rewards vs. effort scale.

Next, we look upon the dreariness of work. In the factory/office setting, you do the same stuff over and over. Obviously, over a period of time, this leads into the result of the worker being alienated from his work. How boring can it get to be repetitively doing the same thing! Even if it is for the sake of earning a keep, what use can there be in getting to be enthusiastic and positive about work, if everything that you do is always the same?

Certainly, there are examples to the contrary, but who can deny that politics is also not evident in the office? There are backstabbers, people who talk ill of others to advance their own positions, either for glory, money, or otherwise…among other ills of course, though this is the most general form that I can think of. But, looking at just the ideal (ie. no socialization) form of the workplace, the goals and the rewards that you achieve are hardly worth the effort to move out of your own box (or partition, for that matter) to bother with others. In a sense, everyone starts feeling alienated and isolated. This becomes aggravated if social relations are brought into the equation – fail to conform in the workplace, and see what happens to your relations. Permit me to say the unvoiceable – you start losing your colleagues’ support. Why? Because you are seen as someone “out of the ordinary”, something that is not within workplace standards. This is very, very rarely seen as “good” by the superiors. Any attachment to such a person will surely mean that you subtly approve of his actions, behavior or non-conformity, resulting in you gradually being isolated as well. Who wants to give up a chance of promotion, opportunities to earn more money, to look better in the eyes of others?
 

No real title for this image, I found it by chance once, you can grab it now from Fantom-XP. Though there may be racial or discriminative undertones in the image, it goes to show what might happen when someone tries to stand out from the rest…though one might better interpret this what could happen when someone is watching to ensure you do not get out of hand and therefore conform.

And this brings us to our second point – significance. Referring to the post I linked to, done by ID Sojourner, he mentions that people start blogging to seek attention in the world today. That is only part of the problem – attention is sought by most people nowadays oppressed by the workings of society and contemporary values. Allow me to elaborate.

The system we have in place today is known as meritocracy. Such a system demands that the person be rewarded based on his abilities instead of his background, social position, and the like. Therefore, ideally, everyone should get an equal chance. The problem, again, is that this “ideal” has been turned into money-exploiting or cost-reduction opportunities by most employers nowadays, and in turn also set off the wrong chain of mindsets in our current generation.
 

Most employers (deny that I am wrong if you please) nowadays look first at the academic qualifications, and experience (where possible, but how can a graduate fresh out of college possibly pick up any experience before he can get a full-time job, most of the time?) that the potential candidate presents. This is also known as credentialism, which is evaluating a person on the basis of educational degrees (Macionis, p527). It is also while doing so that the employer looks at the place (college, university, whether it is famous, you get the inference) before your qualifications and he/she will certainly place a degree over a diploma (in most fields) in terms of prospects. Is it the employer’s fault that such a mindset has developed? I say not. Rather, meritocracy is to blame. And how does this fit in with our question at hand? Simple.

The gap between the “can’s” and the “cannot’s” will grow ever larger. Certainly, you could say that, with hard work, and the willingness to learn and improve oneself throughout life, will assist in the individual’s chances of landing a suitable job. Unfortunately, you are forgetting something important – discrimination and bias. No system is ever fully perfect, and such is the case of meritocracy. The ideal system is tainted with bias formed of different things in different employer’s eyes, and what worse if the bias is a general consensus, even if unspoken, amongst the league of employers or the class of job you are looking for. If this bias is strong enough, even the best person with the best qualifications and skills for the job will get passed over for someone with inferior skills and qualifications but does not fall under the bias category.
 

How can you justify this? Obviously, the person will feel slighted, if not downright miserable. And I can say that this does not apply to a few people, but quite a lot of the population, in almost all developed countries nowadays. “Why,” the person might start thinking, “does this happen to me? How can I be passed over for someone whom I know is not up to the same standards as I am?” Obviously, this leads to a reduction in self-esteem, and a gradual feeling of loss and alienation by society itself if help is not forthcoming (as is the case in almost all nations today).
 

A graphic representation of the Internet today. Image thanks to KK.

Thus, globalization has done ill to the concept of the unique individual as we know it. By crushing first the possibilities of rewarded socialization without ill intentions in the workplace, and then secondly by making standard the standards by which people are judged through globalizing industries, economies, jobs, and mindsets, we are looking at a bleak future for the concept of uniqueness indeed. But wait, this is not all. We must now look at the final dagger, the single most powerful nail in the coffin in this entire debate, and what you are using now in fact to look at this article – the Internet.

Since its explosion of popularity in the early to mid 1990’s, the Internet swiftly became a vast place of communication and a hub of information. Nowadays, most of us cannot imagine living without the Internet. We use it to look for information, converse with others in real-time meetings all around the world, and seek attention (such as through blogging, posting up of pictures, friend and social networks, and more). Indeed, the Internet has done so much that we can say it is the singular most powerful medium for the act of globalization as we know it and have discussed thus far in this essay.
 

By allowing the spread of free-flow information across borders, with no regards to nationalities, countries and even continents, the Internet has transformed much of our lives today, truly doing more to make the world smaller, and the world actually “global” as we see it, by crushing those very same borders, differences, and unique cultures that we used to delineate and define ourselves. Or alternatively, you could also say that its ill effects consist of also expounding and then expanding upon the biases that we all hope to erase, the discrimination, the prejudices, and the like. Either way, the Internet has truly globalized the economy, the world, businesses, and much more. Therein lies the problem.

By discovering what else might be popular or in fashion in some other, more developed, and usually more popular region of the world (most of the time, though this is most definitely not limited to, the USA), people seek to want the same thing for themselves, to be identified, as it were, with this same “elite” group. Pop culture has never been so easy to imitate. With a few clicks of a mouse, a few searches of a phrase, or even pictures, you can find out exactly how it is done for yourself. An object, a way of dancing, website design, and much more can now swiftly be imitated in almost limitless variations. This of course does not exclude words and memes that we usually use. And this brings me to my next point – the Internet also allows for two things that both accept and deny individuality. Paradoxical, I know, but one should look at both sides of the debate.

The part of the Internet that accepts individuality is largely something much like what you are reading right now – a blog, or some other form of so-called “free expression” that allows you to voice out what you say and feel, your inner thoughts now reaching a larger audience than was previously possible in a small locality. Blogging is especially one of the more vocal and vital ways to do so, but is it truly free of the restraints of globalization? Rather, I would say that is because of alienation and globalization that we feel compelled to do ourselves a favor (either consciously or subconsciously) by saying what we feel, to stop being oppressed by society as we know it. This then brings us back to the earlier mentioned point of being significant in today’s world – we seek to try and become important in order to fill in the gap left by the fluttering and wavering of self-esteem. No human being will willingly allow itself to be left unheard once it has seen the power of communication and speech, especially when there is a device like the Internet to transport its words to many, many others, some of whom undoubtedly will be of similar thought.

And it is because we all want to belong somewhere that we therefore begin on this process of blogging (or whatever other form of free expression), in order to seek (as ID Sojourner mentioned) and find those very people that have similar and agreeable philosophies and views. Herein also lies the downfall of these very people however, as we shall see later.
 

A typical 4Chan image, in quite the representation of a motivational poster. The words leave nothing to the imagination as to how 4Chan is like. From Stitt Happens.

The second aspect of the Internet denies individuality, by allowing anonymity on a large scale. Let us look at nowhere else, but in a chatroom online. Assume that in life, you are unable to be your true self, either because your true self would be seen as non-conforming to the standards of the society/environment you live in, or because of some other reason which does not expressively allow you to do so. But in the Internet, you can be your true self; you can soar higher, give life to your own colors, draw your own palette of personality however you like it. And best of all, so long as you do not give out information freely, people all around the world who are strangers that you will most likely never meet in another country will know you only as how you present yourself. You are an anonymous person, only identifiable by what you choose to present. Ah wait, this seems to be that in this case, individuality is being promoted, and not repressed. Unfortunately, my dear readers, that is not the case.
 

Think about it a little. If you only show your true colors online, to a variety of people you will most likely never meet, will you have motivation to show your true self in real life? Sure, in the Internet, you will become an individual, a unique person as we have defined within the scope of this essay, but in real life, you will remain as seen by others – a conformity. You have no real emotional drive, no determination, nothing at all driving you to go out of your own bounds of real life and actually allow the people around you to discover what you are. Then again, if you consider that to be individuality, then I shall have nothing to say. In my view, you are only deluding yourself.

Further, there now arise many imageboards, forums and other similar places of speech that now allow anonymous speakers and readers. None are probably more conspicuous in the English-speaking world than 4Chan. It is from there that Internet culture, or rather, the darker side of it, derives its memes, terms, and much more. And the best part of it to most people is, you can be a complete dipshit there, as an anonymous person, and no one will likely find out who you really are. Oh, the joy of anonymity! You are freed from your restraints, you can give vent to your frustrations and do much more! Well, within the scope of 4Chan’s wide-ranging boards, maybe. But has it ever given you much thought that all you are doing if you take strong participation in the boards there is degrading your own intelligence? Obviously, most of the people there tend to engage in discussions that are less than satisfactory, alongside flaming and trolling. You probably learn how to flame better in a 4Chan board than anywhere else, when it comes to Internet culture. What else do you really learn?
 

Perhaps best summed up is the so-called motto, slang, catchphrase or whatever you call it of the anonymous user of 4Chan, expressing once and for all the irony of the anonymity that the Internet has given us in globalizing the world and destroying individuality in the process – “We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive, we do not forget.” Implicit here is the meaning of the word “legion”. Ironic.
 

Titled “Government Bureau”, by George Tooker once again, this picture shows the dehumanization of humans into mere “cases” to be taken care of, alienating and eliminating the idea of individuality thanks to bureaucracy and its human costs (Macionis, p176). From The Journal of Mythic Arts.

Of course, it can be seen that, there are individuals who have realized the scope of this, or, for egotistical, nationalistic or other reasons, have sought solutions to the problem. One of this is to create groups, organizations, or curriculum types, educational centers meant for a specific group, ethnic or not. These people argue that by doing so, they retain their heritage, their individuality (in a sense) and their uniqueness. This can be no further from the truth.

How is this so? In the same way that the individual is not motivated to step out of his or her own social bounds and reveal himself/herself to the real world in his/her life, so is it with such one-mind groups. What they do is shut themselves up in their own hole, having only their frog’s view of the sky from the well. They retain their own culture, their own individuality, their own way of life in doing so, but do they tell others about it? Do they actively go out, and ensure that it will survive by being propagated in a formal or informal way? It is not that one should not retain one’s own heritage and culture, one’s own uniqueness, but rather that without reaching out to others in the process and letting others learn of the existence of such culture and uniqueness, one will only do harm to oneself in the long run.
 

This then is the major fault of groups or individuals who gather in the same like-minded groups – that they do not ensure that they are reaching out to others or socializing but instead stick to their own little close-knitted communities that people either find hard to enter, and thus spurn on the basis of being spurned, or groups that do not hear, see and speak for themselves, effectively shutting themselves up from the rest of the world. This, my dear friends, is what we must avoid.

So, what is the point of this essay so far, you might ask. True, the problems that I talk about are certainly existent, no matter where you look, but why talk about all this? It is because I hope to avoid a total collapse of what we consider to be individuality, that I bring light to this very issue. But how can we solve it, you might ask. Let me now look in the final section as to the possible solutions that we can undertake now.
 

I have no idea what this image is called or where it came from. Rather, it is what it might be expressing in relation to this essay that I wish to put across. The red and blue marbles are larger in number, but as we can see, different shades of blue, and even different colors are also in this picture. It shows perhaps the gradual realization of individuals of the problem of globalization today, and one day, may the colors of these marbles, like human individuality, be diverse and unique in each of their own rights, whether in color, or shades of the same color.

First of all, the Internet, as mentioned, is not only the source of globalization, but increasingly in the world today, also a source of open and free expression, within the boundaries of course, of national laws and sometimes international. Yet free speech remains largely unoppressed for most matters, such as in a typical blog, and therefore you, as the individual, can begin by no longer oppressing your own thoughts and conforming to the societal standards set down by the government of your country, or by even the people and the mindsets of today, and expressing yourself in many of the available ways on the Internet.

But this is, as I said, not really going to help much, unless you take your own step out of your comfort zone and start by initiating yourself slowly, your true self, that is, into others’ worlds, and gradually opening yourself up, and in the process, encouraging them to open themselves up. In April of this very year, I organized a gathering for like-minded bloggers of the local community. One of them, misakichii, actually said, in his short review of the outing, what I quoted earlier about taking a step out of your own comfort zone. I have no idea whether it was an enriching experience that continued to bring him joy in the time that was to come since getting to know more friends, but I do know that, in organizing and getting to know more people, I would not have come as far as I have today at least in terms of being a blogger and allowing hereby my thoughts to be expressed as I do now.
 

A group photo of the first gathering that will eventually result in the formation of Team Blue. One wonders if the group will fall into the same mistake committed by so many others who have adhered to the old phrase of “birds of a feather flock together”.

One direct result of that first gathering was the formation of our own group, Team Blue. Already, I can bet that most of you who have read the essay to this point will realize that this group might indeed fall into the same vicious category as those who have, in an attempt to be unique, instead fall into their very own trap of not looking outside its borders. This is indeed becoming rather true of some members and the way interactions have been going, but I for one at least attempt to, whenever I can, encourage people within the team to interact more with people internally, and even externally. Yet even the “external” people are considered to be part of the same flock; most of us in the blogosphere as we know it do indeed blog largely about anime, otaku culture, and related topics of interest. It is difficult indeed to find, for us who have sought escape from life in such a culture, to walk out into real life, and shed our very shields of falsehood that have hidden us. Yet without an attempt, without trying, can you say that you will indeed fail? As Michael Jordan, the great basketball player, once said, “I can accept failure. Everyone fails at something. But I can’t accept not trying.” Is it really true that trying begets failure? Rather, not trying is 100% failure, whilst at least in trying, the probabilities of success may be slim, but they are there.

Secondly, it is in the propagation of this very message that we must also put our faith in. Not enough people actually come to realize that globalization has crushed their existence as a unique individual, and thus we must seek to voice out this very issue to them. Spreading word of the problem helps a whole lot, not just in getting more people to awaken to their own individuality, but also perhaps to be able to seek more and better solutions in the long run. One who may yet be able to think very soundly on such ideas can make nothing of the situation if that person is not aware of it.

Lastly, we must realize by now that such a change must occur over generations. Yes, it is a sad thing to affirm, but this is something that does not take place overnight. You are changing not just the mindsets of the people around you for something like this to be of truly global change – you are changing the minds of both the old- and the new-fashioned. Can we indeed change such mindsets? I have no real guarantee or affirmation in either way of the answer, but what I do know is that without trying, then the probability of success, as mentioned, is a nice, big, fat zero.
 

Allow it not to trap our individuality, but instead ride its waves to fight against its side effects. Image thanks to Ivette Franco.

In sum, globalization, to me at least, has crushed individuality to a large extent, yet in various ways as well, allowed for it to blossom if taken in the right direction. If we do not take steps to prevent the further dilution of unique cultures, ways of life, and especially of uniqueness within the individual, our future is bleak indeed. In fact, all we will do is fall into the abyss of continuous conflict, trivial and mindless debates, and continue to be exploited by those who think only of themselves sitting up high in the hierarchy of society as we know it today.
 

All rights reserved. Please do not copy or plagiarize any part of this work of mine without at least giving due credit and quotation in any work of yours, either academic or commercial. I thank you for your consideration.
 

Sources

Sociology (Tenth Edition), John J. Macionis
World History (Fourth Edition), Duiker/Spielvogel

Related posts:

1. The Psychology of My Emotions