Someone regrets that predominance of the individual
freedom violates the public order of the society and asserts that people should
obey the public rules. Of course, the order in this context means the visible
hierarchy of the power and the authority.
Nevertheless, I wonder if it is true that the individuals are
surrounded with excessive freedom. I suspect that an independent and free
individual from the public. It can be true that “the private” individual are
nothing more than the individual with suppressed by the power of “the public”.
In other words, “the private” individuals are the individuals who are given
some choices by “the public” and make a decision from them.
For instance, “the private” individuals are working for the
company by train, doing the same tasks and going home every day. This enables
us to get bread and butter. People consume entertainment provided with by the
public in holidays in a week. Acquiring information and thinking about it is nothing more than the reaction to mass media.
“The public” knows everything about individuals’ reactions. Is the
private room remained? If there is “the
private” room in the world, then it is controlled by “the public”. Pierre-Félix
Guattari pointed out that there is a “self-renunciation toward the subjectivity
of the market”. No one voluntarily wants to renounce “the private” room.
Rather, this is the result of uncontrollable conditions. It is the cliché;
however, this situation is “self-domestication”. Self-domestication warrants
the security and the life, although it forces to lose freedom instead.
The person with the higher position in a company is prone to be
kicked out by one letter. I don’t understand the meaning of the higher position
due to its instability. Hierarchy in the organization is nothing more than the
means of enhancing motivations to work. Those are lamentable who are convinced
to believe in the pseudo-value of the hierarchy in the company.
The world “private” are reduced to a symbol. This issue is
criticized from the perspectives of “individual” and “mind”. Not only does
proclaim the reconstruction of “the public”, but also someone does proclaim the
reconstruction of “the private”. “The public” is no longer conveyed the
government, but it represents the society as power including the government.
This can be the real aspect of “the public”.
Considering the origin of these worlds, it can be true
that there were conflicts but both were not inconsistent with each other. Thus,
it is required to maintain the better “the public” to promote “the better private”.
Sometimes, the private is devoted for the public because it presupposes that
this judgment can eventually cause “the better private”. The problem is this
presupposition does not always reach the consensus among people.
Some—people who are at the end of the spectrum from my
position—might argue that it does not matter because they believe that “the
public”, consisting of beautiful order, is the only value of the human beings,
and the private is valueless. Moreover, they might replace the meaning of “the
private” to the condition that do a volunteer work for and make a contribution
to “the public”. I don’t understand the position of these individuals. Would
they argue this is not the private utterance?
Regardless
of their consideration, it is the fact that this is paradoxical situation
because there is no private that can support “the public”. “The public” that
should contribute to me is putrefied and perplexed. If this recognition is
true, then I wonder it might exist other than despair. In this situation, the
power is not restricted. Yet, there are conflicts between powers.
The individuals who have the power are not concerned with the
private or with the public, but if they are concerned with something, it must
be the power as means but not objectives. The notion of “the private” and “the
public” are about to be utilized by the power. People should notice their
manipulations of meanings. It is natural that the alertness of these
manipulations of the meanings is responsible for the journalism and the mass
media. I discredit them because they are also the part of the power.
No comments:
Post a Comment