Singlehood, Socialization and Definitions

Singlehood, Socialization and Definitions


At my times as a student, I had a lesson in social skills, dedicated to present the power of the collective over that of the individual. To prove their point, the teacher brought a pair thin, fragile wooden sticks. They easily broke a single stick, but when they hold a group of sticks, it was impossible to break them.


Look at this stupid bias. The teacher metaphorized humans as fragile wooden sticks. At the same time they could bring poles made of steel, and then even a single pole would be impossible to break with one’s bear hands. Are all humans comparable to fragile sticks that easily break on their own? Are all humans fragile when solitary?


Well, even if you are not - school has tried to make it clear to me that I am fragile like a wooden stick when on my own. Since I had at least the foundations of a philosopher back then, I knew that not everything that is presented to me is actually true, just because it is presented to me in a certain way. Things are independent of how they are presented, and therefore perception is not reality but merely an observation of reality.


The same is here - just because socialization may teach us that we are fragile when alone, single or both - it doesn’t mean that we are really like that even if we learn to believe in that bias. It is bias because collectives empower themselves through praising altruism, fulfillment of the norms and obsessing oneself with the issues of society. I therefore believe I was taught to see individuals as fragile wooden sticks, because if people would believe this, they would be less dedicated to themselves and more to their society of origin, bringing society more power. Therefore it is possible that I and perhaps other people, were taught to believe that we are fragile as individuals, because this belief brings power to society, and this teaching is biased towards society’s interest to gain more power from the benefits of mass conformity.


It is hard to be single for some because many may believe that they are useless losers when they don’t have a partner, or even a resume of sexual encounters. Many singles, and especially women, are pressured to find a mate, marry and bring kids, not only because that’s the norm in a large portion (if not most) of societies worldwide, but also because we learn to believe that we are fragile human beings when alone. The self-loathing, the self-hatred, the self-pity - all of these may be common amongst many singles that may think they worth nothing, just because they are either aloof, extensively single, or both, with little regard to additional aspects of themselves; aspects that define them individually and not only socially.


Even if we’ll take a look at the common (debunked) alpha-beta theory hierarchy among males and females - one’s status in this imagined hierarchy is based on how one is perceived by the members of the sex they are attracted to. The alpha has all the ladies, the beta is less preferable by the ladies, the omega is depressed loser that rejects all the ladies and never gets “game” - all of the positions in this hierarchy - all besides the zeta archetype (the one that “goes their own way”) - are based on the assumption that one’s worth is based on their relations with others, rather than one as a distinct individual, capable of some level of autonomy from others, which exists beyond how they are perceived by the other members of their group/community/society.


I think it would be good for everyone to try and see themselves beyond the perception of others, beyond the image and identity they are given by their local society. Is everything that a society presents to one, even if through formal means such as in institutions of educations, is authentic to the highest, most reliable degree? Are singles truly fragile wooden sticks just because they are single? Is fragility a part of being single? Is toughness a part of being married? Is a married person more resilient than the life-long individual? Are a follower of the norms lives a happier life than an independent being, simply because they follow the norm? Are all the homosexuals fragile feminine people? Do all the muscular people getting all of the attention of the members of the sex which they are attracted to?


All of these questions are examples of how one learns to see things and beings through the image of socialization, rather than of through the definitive, necessary components of things and beings. A homosexual is not feminine because they are gay; a muscular person doesn’t have sex appeal just because they’re muscular (even though it could help); a follower of the norms isn’t necessarily happier than an independent mind and - singles and loners are not fragile, depressed, awkward, suicidal, homicidal, desperate, stupid or anti-social - just because they are singles, solitary, or both.

And yet, through the accumulation of socialized-based stereotypes and not completely logical assumptions, we learn or are attempted to be taught, to see things in accordance to societal expectations, rather than of how things as they are - in accordance to their accurate definitions, that is. We learn to see the entire ocean while we forget or barely aware of the fact that the ocean is actually a collection of distinct collections of H20 formulas, composing and decomposing and each going in another direction. Even with all of these movements, the atoms - the elementary, necessary definitions of things and beings - continue to be preserved even by simply existing.

Once a specific mindset is adopted, with enough dedication feelings of hardship in whatever situation can disappear and be converted into other feelings. Feelings are not indications of reality; they are a biased result of mindset. When one feels it’s very hard to be single, it’s not because that it is, but it’s because their emotions merely reflect their mindset in biochemical form, making emotions biased by definition, because they will always be biased by one’s thoughts and their perception of things and beings, not because what the emotion tells us is true, merely because we feel that emotion, regardless of the level upon which the emotion is felt.


Once one learns to detach themselves from the passing pedestrians that are emotions, once can be closer to the truth - the truth in accordance to accurate, elementary definitions, rather than seeing associations as unseparated components of said definitions, just because said associations are common in frequency, or because we learn to see them as non-distinguishable from elementary definitions; for a single person is simply a person that is not found in a romantic relationship - and the rest are associations, accumulated by socialization.

Featured Articles

Recordings

© 2019 Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosopher