We are the results of the conditioning our societies expose us to. Intended or not, as a positive outcome, the conditioning prevents the degradation of larger structures into chaos and non-cooperation (which they eventually do). This conditioning also sows the seeds for all the emotional and moral problems we experience in the society. Making humans work together in large numbers – people whom they share nothing common with, requires the invention of a lie. It is the easiest to blame just one or two of these – religion, nations or money; while leaving a special place of honor for the third one. But, all three are the timeless tools of conditioning, and also inter-dependent.
The structure which is forced upon the individual must find its outlet. These outlets are, for now, being channeled for better control with apt technology that addresses them. Inlets were always easy to manage, it is the outlets which still need work., but we are getting there. The tendency is high that these outlets often take the route of violence. Those are times of change, when a new recipe for conditioning is tried and we move from one bottled-formula to another. The monkey-mind which makes this outlet be unpredictable and ungovernable is also the same monkey-mind which seeks conditioning. It must latch onto something which brings a sensation of belonging to the tribe. We will do anything to belong – all culture is just about belonging to the group, all culture is conditioning.
We can look at social-conditioning as a gradient within a sphere, with an ever changing cultural command at its core, and its crust being most different from it. The crust, or the fringe, is out-of-step and often in conflict with this dynamic zeitgeist at the center. The zeitgeist will always be open to trying out some part of the fringe, but it is quick to discard and forget, and cycle through it. The mainstream’s values and ideas are as distant from the brothel in a city, as they are from a small independent church in a village.
The conditioning closest to the core, ever in flux, is of the kind which benefits nation-states and the market – this is where the modern man is educated, to become a good customer and an involved voter. The further one moves away from this core, one sees more rigid structures and loyal tradition, smaller groups and more individuality. True, that a person living in a tribe has his world-view shaped by the fifteen people he knows, but yours is shaped by a faceless advertising agency and is no different from at least ten thousand people in your city – who is now more original in their thought? Who is the one popping pills for anxiety? Who is the one ranting and complaining about everything, and involved in the lives of people he doesn’t even know?
Originality, whenever it surfaces, is just a mutation of thought – an anomaly in a string of unoriginal second hand experiences. And what if, that very perfect blend of second hand experiences caused this original thought to emerge in the first place? Ultimately, the individual must decide the level of compromise they are willing to make with the society. They have to test how much they can diverge from the mainstream, without getting penalized. Their groups must also work with that realization in mind. Cults, for this very reason, in their rate of emergence and divergence become an easy target for the society. At the other end of this, controllers of culture – governments, organized religions and corporations, also often push for divergence – but these pushes are of the safe and planned kind, with an assumption that culture can be controlled to achieve an agenda. What they do not wish to accept is that cultural conditioning is not conscious, even when it might seem that way temporarily. The anomaly does always arise, in some minor way, where the individual writes his own little book of laws in his heads.
In our own lives and stories, we often overlook how much of our own identity and actions are built on unoriginal tastes and choices. We are told to feel and react in a certain way for a certain situation. We are encouraged to have opinions, but only if they are not too divergent from what is being spoken casually on the streets. For each of these liberties and choices which define us in the modern world, we are encouraged to also consume something to make it look or feel valid. In the hand of the industrialized society, this becomes a model of governance – to rule via consumption for largely manufactured needs.
Even the peculiar life-choices, diverging away from the mainstream, are just a moment in the past which amazed the eccentric – it was a story of someone else he saw or heard, and in its pursuit he built a replica of it. But this is never an exact replica, because his own experiences differ uniquely, and eventually it becomes his own piece, only to be replicated by someone else. Social outcasts and rebels, unlike what they might think, are also not able to be completely free from this – their identity is a patchwork of other ‘influential’ lives at the fringe which fascinated them.
Coming back from the verbose segue, in short – all of us are not free from social conditioning. Even when we do become aware of it, and act to reject it, the outcome is nihilistic and can lead us to dark ends. There is also the path of non-participation, to not react to the conditioning and then mastering the inner reality – this is what the yogis and other spiritualists can do. Again, non-participation is not an easy journey and not for everyone. It offers its own temptations in groups, which the establishment almost always reacts violently to. The third one, though in participation with the system, is the awareness and self-awareness of social conditioning which a leader exhibits. I have increasingly begun to believe that the leaders of thought and societies across the world were aware of this conditioning they were born into. Their rejection of it, while participating in it, is what the system automatically selected for. Their anomaly found a way out at the top only to trickle down and repeat the process once over again.