When analyzing memes constellations that bar the progress of social revolution, I find the most dangerous are the ones that impose group differentiation. Democrats, Catholics, Mongols, transvestites are not people. They are labels that had long devoured people. The group identity turns out to be the symptom of social underdevelopment. This outlook goes against the idea of the society’s liberalization through complicating its structure by subdividing it into multitudes of groups*. However, the problem is that any given social group is a closed system; it is diseased, it has entropy, and thus it is regressive.
Take, for example, the viral notion of nationality. What is it but the incest*, and a socio-cultural fiction that leads to more alienation by identifying people with belonging to this or that historically formed ghettoes? Is the idea of successive community based on random birth of strangers at some territory viable?
To identify oneself as an Italian or a Serbian means to think that one is an atom of some “characteristic majority.” To have a nationality is to celebrate mediocrity. The “national” cannot be individual by its very nature. From one generation to another, states instill national ideas, and the artificial notion of “nation” is cultivated as a sort of sacral grace one should immerse in before one’s sum of applauding forefathers. With this, the national idea is accompanied by “patriotism”, a sexual disorder of the instinctual object, another memetic chimera that helps governments to always have dehumanized kamikaze soldiers.
By any design, the group identification leads to cognitive suffocation. As an example, one can have the socialization of different sexual orientations. Despite the fact that the homosexuality has the oppositional potential subversive love in the context of conservative communities, it is in fact just a different type of captivity. The existence of the LGBT community itself is the result of an explicable and, generally, noble social process. Nevertheless, when the oppressed minority becomes a legitimate shred of the social organism’s body, we can meet something like a cheerful emancipated lesbian who thrashes heterosexuality as “reactionary conformity” or bisexuality as “schizophrenic indeterminacy” with the zeal of a village homophobe. In this sense, a gay person and a church-going old woman are butchers of the same sort. Their competition of standards differs in color only but not in essence. As other group formations, the LGBT community is infected with the cult of “their own,” and as such it is militant.
In due course, the liberalism sensed the problem of group differentiation. However, fearing the conflict with individual feelings, it set to solving it by using purely decorative methods. For example, it did this by spreading the new set of rules for decency, or political correctness, when the notions of racial, sexual or other differences lost their freshness, and if and when they were articulated, it happened only in the context of Dale Carnegie and Leopold the Cat's ideological directive, “You’re German, I’m Kazakh but we’re equal, so let’s always smile and live in friendship.”
The weakness of this approach is that the imputability of those labels remains beyond criticism. They are fraternized artificially and only rhetorically, and this hints at the hypocrisy of the political correctness. It is definitely weird to preserve everything national condemning chauvinism in the same breath. Isn’t it obvious that the chauvinism is a natural consequence of the national differentiation? Where nations exist, a hamster sapiens will always divide the world into “his own” and “aliens.” Is there a way out? It may be the rejection of any group identification for the sake of manifesting oneself as an individual autonomy. Sexuality, nationality or race, they are only involuntary accents. It’s high time to abolish them as retro, hailing the New Babel.
It may seem that this call for action disguises the negation of human nature as the nature of a social animal; or, which is worse, it alleges the society of uniformity. In this sense, it is important to feel this thin border between individual characteristics of a specific human and the spreading of this or that characteristic in order to form a closed community around it.
Apart from that, if sociality comes from our nature itself, we could foster our egos as much as we please. We could draw from our personal. Autism here is not a threat, and alliance is inevitable. So, instead of merging through grouping, let there be the brotherly cooperation of the biological species, formed by the kaleidoscope of individual worlds.
The Space Odyssey is one of the ultimate aspirations of our mysterious population. Its realization is impossible, however, without global cooperation of individuals, not groups. No hipsters, Moslems, gays or transvestites set for an intergalactic travel but humans in their charming abundance. The imperative is the unity of the biological species. Anyway, there will be the time when even this will be thought of as a limitation under the banner of group. But then, the issue of the brotherhood of entities from star to star, not of earthlings will be relevant.