Rebelling Against the Plague of Me-ism
A discussion on the dangers of hyper-individualism and the means to combat it.
‘Human rights’ is a term that drifts in and out of our conversations frequently.
For the most part, Millenials and Gen-Zers are remarkably aware of the necessity of various human rights and how those rights impact our lives.
We like our freedom, and we love being able to claim certain things as ‘my right’: my right to work, my right to equality, my right to the pursuit of happiness, my right to vote, my right to pleasure, my right to love, my right to life…the list could go on and on.
The fact that so many of these rights are entrenched in law now is a monumental testament to the power of a culture that values equality over prejudice…but have we gone too far the other way?
Lying silently like a time bomb waiting to explode under the claims of ‘my rights’ is a deep problem that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our society.
The danger lies in one seemingly inconsequential little word, a word that can change the course of an entire culture, that has been the cause of many wars and injustices throughout history, and that influences the very way in which we view the world and our part to play in shaping that world for future generations.
That word is ‘my’.
The Legacy of ‘Others Rights’ Movements
Although I’m incredibly grateful to have the rights I do, when I read about the list of ‘my rights’, I get a niggle of doubt that just doesn’t go away.
I know something is wrong, some emphasis is misplaced somewhere or other, but it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what is off track.
That’s precisely what makes the subtle difference between the modern ‘my rights’ and the historical ‘your rights’ movements so critically dangerous.
Historically speaking, various human rights movements have often been focused on fighting for others’ human rights; the oftentimes more powerful individuals slowly wake to the injustices being perpetrated on less powerful individuals, and they fight to right that wrong.
Take slavery, for example: slaves in the early 19th century had no power to fight for their own rights; they were lucky if they even survived the brutal conditions on the voyage over to plantations, and when they arrived at the plantations it was only to realise they would have been luckier to die onboard ship.
So often, the worst human rights crises are perpetrated when the victims have no legal right of fighting the abuse.
Enter stage right, the abolitionists.
These were men and women who had more of a voice and more power to create legal change than those they were fighting for, and they used that power to create a tsunami of human rights movements that rocked the world as it was known.
This same process of injustice, powerless victims, those with power using their voices to fight for the oppressed, and a solution that overcame the injustice and formed a legal framework for preventing those specific human rights abuses to be perpetrated and condoned by the law in the future.
But each time a new human rights movement came around, the victims had just a little more power, just a little bit of a louder voice, and a little bit more of a legal leg to stand on, thanks to the efforts of those who fought before them.
And now today, in many of our human rights crises, the victims have the legal frameworks necessary to enable them to fight for long-lasting change.
All these results have been a testament to the power of the voice of morality amidst a world that has a conscience blinded to the sufferings of others…but it is also in danger of creating a new injustice, if not handled wisely.
The Danger of Modern ‘My Rights’ Movements
There has been a subtle shift over the last two centuries from a focus on preserving and upholding the rights of others (often at a personal expense) to fighting for ‘my rights’, and this shift is particularly prolific in the woke left-wing movements.
Sure, preserving ‘my rights’ is important, because as individuals who have been entrusted with a beautiful heritage of fighting against the abuse of human rights, we have a duty to uphold those rights.
However, in a society that has become extremely individualized and isolated, we are in dire need of a reason to unite around the common pursuit of justice, not disintegrate under the pressures of me-ism.
Ironically, though we are more ‘connected’ than ever, we have lost our sense of community; we are being constantly told that we are enough, to look inside us for everything, and to rebel against societal norms.
Even more ironically, this mass rebellion against societal norms has created a new culture of normalized rebellion: we’re swamped in a crowd of unique dare-to-be-differents who all conform in their pursuit of nonconformity.
This is what happens when everyone places the most emphasis on what I deserve rather than what humanity as a whole deserves.
Our culture of me-before-you needs to change before the glass dome of human rights shatters under the pressures of hyper-individualism, because justice can only be upheld long-term when it is supported by the community and culture as a whole.
Creating A Culture Of Self-Sacrifice
So what would it look like if we shifted our focus from ‘my rights’ to ‘your rights’?
What if, rather than fighting for foundational human rights because of how that affects us, we instead fought for those rights because of how they impact others, whether those ‘others’ are our future generations, our elderly, women and children in third-world countries, or poverty-stricken people in Africa?
This is an almost imperceptible change in our mindest but the beneficial ramifications are almost endless.
When we shift to an ‘others rights’ mindset that focuses on the needs and rights of others, it fosters a normalized culture of self-sacrifice, preferring others’ needs above our own, and being willing to risk our comfort and reputations to fight for justice and equality.
Compare this to the ‘my rights’ mindset that focuses on the individual’s wants above all else, the sacrifice of others’ rights to preserve my own, and the formation of a hierarchy that starts with me, neglects you, and forgets the meaning of community.
This focus on the ‘me’ instead of ‘you’ or ‘us’ places us at the top of the proverbial slippery slope, and the only way to avoid the carnage of anarchy and isolating hyper-individualism is by intentionally fostering a community of service above self.
When we foster this sort of community, we lay the foundation for a culture that recognises the duty to preserve and maintain democracy and freedom for all lays in the hands of those who have the power to create change.
This includes every one of us because if you have a voice or a vote, you have the power to make a meaningful impact in the fight for justice.
We have been blessed with a heritage of defending human rights; now it is our mission to protect those rights.
It is no longer good enough to post a tokenistic slogan about human rights, or to lay claim to the wide variety of rights that are afforded us by our laws; no, now is the time to keep fighting for these fundamental rights to be given to all humans, born or unborn, planned or unplanned, able-bodied or not, and elderly or young.
Our previous generations brought us this far, and now we have to keep on pressing forward, one small, monotonous step at a time.
And as we do so, we can remember that what we are fighting for is not some selfish, egotistical ‘my rights’ movement, but a historical and self-sacrificial movement that puts others necessary rights above our preferential comfort; because those necessary and fundamental rights are the ones worth standing for.
Rights are not prescribed by government, they can only be described by government. They are innate in our character as Gods creation. The states very existence is a breach of our rights in the first place. We don't consent to the state governing us, like we do when Christ becomes our governance, for example. The responsibility lies on the individuals to defend themselves and others, but we should aware that that most often means defending against the incursion of the nation state against peaceful individuals.
I like what you are saying, generally. In my view, though, I worry whenever we start using the words "rights" and "individualism." Those are words of deep meaning and magic, and we must be cautious.
Yes, for sure, there is a species of hyper-individualism at work today. But I would be tempted to frame it more as atomized, rootless narcissism. The reason I say that is because i like to preserve the term "individualism" as, generally speaking, the opposite of "collectivism." (Collectivism in turn, being distinct from "community," with the former being forced and the latter being chosen. Collectivism is very evil.)
I have noticed this issue in conservatives like Ben Shapiro, too. In critiquing this exact same phenomenon that you are, they too decry the excessive focus on "the individual." I understand the critique, but without caveats, we risk assailing the individual human person from both ends—both from this end, and from the end that the left does it: "the individual does not exist or is a subunit of the collective, and must subordinate to (what we say is) the will of the collective."
One of the biggest caveats, then, is that we have utterly lost sight of what is, and is not, a "right." In essence, a right is anything you want to do that does not initiate force upon another. Thus, each and every individual human person has a right to
• seek a job…but not to be given one at another's expense
• enjoy equal opportunity…but not to be given equality of outcome at another's expense
• seek medical care from a doctor…but not to force that doctor to provide treatment at the point of a gun
• etc.
In other words, many of the things that today's rootless, narcissistic, hyper-atomized individuals are claiming as rights are NOT rights at all. So, not only are they me-me-me focused, they are claiming "rights" that require that others be subjected to violence (pay my student loans with the sweat of your brow, use my pronouns or lose your job, etc.).
I think these things are worth mentioning in the context. The defense of individualism (against collectivism) and REAL RIGHTS (against force and violence) is absolutely justified. I just hope that in the course of critiquing this phenomenon of rootless narcissists claiming fake rights we do not conflate that behavior with a genuine defense of the legitimate rights of the individual human person.