The non-standard answer to modern society: Meng Qingyan's discussion on the meaning and joy of life | society | answer
It can be said that if a person is accustomed to doing things according to standard answers, it is difficult to feel the charm in art. Similarly, a person who is accustomed to the standard answer may find it difficult to appreciate the meaning and joy of life, as many children have grown up with the standard answer.
What is even more terrifying than the "standard answer" in exams is the "standard answer" in life. In reality, many evaluations of individuals are based on certain "standards". This kind of "standard answer" lifestyle has even become an indispensable thing for many people.
In "Whose Question: A Non Standard Answer to Modern Society," sociologist Meng Qingyan does not provide a standard answer about "what to do," but only provides a perspective of understanding oneself and the world. By analyzing the fundamental problems of modern people, we can understand where self confusion and ways of thinking come from, and give birth to more courage to face life with clarity.
Experience may not be reliable
Many times, the "standard answer" is a form of "experience", but "experience" is not necessarily reliable, especially in the current situation where experience is ineffective.
In human history, experience was once the most important thing. At that time, the radius of human life was narrow, and many people had never been to a place 100 kilometers away or even left their villages in their lifetime; At that time, human social relations were basically fixed and limited to villages and clans; The channels for humans to obtain information are only passed down by word of mouth, and even major events such as dynastic changes may take some time to realize
Therefore, the sentence "I have eaten more salt than you have eaten rice" would be very convincing. Because in the simple and slow paced era of small farmers, most things were repetitive, such as how to farm, how to cut grass, how to make firewood, and how to chop meat, all of which were tricks that made perfect with practice. As for the so-called "life experience", of course, it also focuses on following the crowd. Over time, this naturally gives rise to a fear of being different from others. It can even be said that experience is the only thing that can be passed on to future generations.
But now, a person can obtain even more information in a day than in a lifetime during the medieval era. Since modern times, the process of human civilization has advanced rapidly, to the extent that once humanity regains empiricism, it often means regressing. If civilization is truth, then the importance of ideals, creativity, emotions, beliefs, and technology all ranks before experience, even far removed. If modern people only rely on experience to live, they are likely to encounter obstacles everywhere.
Modern people are constantly swaying between meaning and nothingness, function and value, ideals and reality, which is not a problem encountered by individuals, but a life trend that humans inevitably encounter in modern society. There is no standard answer to deal with it.
What is the relationship between a house and home
A house is a major event in Chinese life and has also become Meng Qingyan's analytical target. Is a life without a house a life of failure? This may be a question that lingers in the minds of many migrant workers, like a voice that always rings in their ears, constantly testing the psychological tolerance of modern people. In Meng Qingyan's view, the more fundamental question behind this issue lies in what kind of relationship a house has with its home.
From daily experience, it is difficult for people to establish a sense of security and certainty in their lives without real estate. But Meng Qingyan asked, "Is that enough to answer those questions?"
Even if this practical problem is sublimated into a philosophical question, using concepts such as "those with permanent property have perseverance" and "settling down and relocating" as answers seems vague. The logic of Maslow's theory of needs is still that "those with permanent property have perseverance", which regards housing as the most basic need. Only by satisfying this aspect can we talk about higher-level needs; "Resettlement" is approximately equivalent to using A to explain A, which is an abstract answer to specific problems because it cannot explain a series of questions: how to understand "resettlement", what is "resettlement", and why should "resettlement" be based on "soil"?
Meng Qingyan believes that in modern society, there are only four types of relationships between houses and homes: having a house and a home, having a house but not a home, having no house but a home, and having no house but no home. If the subjective mentality of happiness is viewed as a spectrum, then having a house, having a home, and having no house, having no home are undoubtedly at the two ends of the spectrum, but the boundary between the middle two types seems very blurred.
Compared to the awkward situation often discussed in the media, "having a house without a home" is rarely mentioned, but it is quite common.
In the book "Whose Problem", it is summarized that many people do not have a few hours to stay in their houses every day. If they are in a first tier city and have long commuting hours, then "go to bed when they get home, and leave when the alarm goes off" is a fixed lifestyle for many people. So Meng Qingyan mentioned that in addition to calculating the income/housing price ratio, the more important thing to measure should be the housing price/time ratio, which is the amount of time each property owner spends in their residence each year.
The result of this calculation will make many people realize that the basic living conditions of modern people are states of "deprivation" and "occupation". "Having a house but no home" is a fairly broad definition, whether the house is bought or rented, whether you are single or a family of a few, you may become a "having a house but no home" person due to the erosion and exploitation of time, just returning to a fixed hotel to sleep every night.
The tyranny of the majority in the field of aesthetics
Appearance anxiety is also seen by Meng Qingyan as the "tyranny of the majority". He wrote, "If 'aesthetic convergence' has its inherent capital and communication logic in the current social environment, then the next step is to discuss a more fundamental question: should the aesthetic of appearance be diversified or unified?"
Modern society advocates for diverse aesthetics and individual values, so "beauty" only concerns oneself and has always been regarded as a mature mentality. However, even so, individuals cannot truly detach themselves from the behemoth of "society" in real life.
Aesthetics, to some extent, is the field that best reflects the existence of "society". This is because "society is not only our reference frame, but also an important source of our self-awareness. Society is composed of concrete individuals, but once it is formed, it will generate a force that transcends individuality. This force will penetrate the human body in various ways and from various fields, and the series of cognition generated around appearance is its specific manifestation.".
Meng Qingyan further explained that words such as "trend" and "fashion" are often related to appearance, referring to "the tendencies, reverence, and choices of the majority of people during a certain period of time. So, is the tendency and choice of the majority shaped by a few people, or is it a consensus formed by the 'autonomous' choices of the majority of people?"
This may be a dead cycle question of whether a chicken lays an egg or an egg lays a chicken, and it seems difficult for us to find the answer. But it cannot be denied that "the keen sense of capital and developed mass media play an irreplaceable role in the formation of fashion and trends."
Therefore, whether aesthetics is unified or diversified, and whether the perception of appearance is one's own or someone else's, is essentially a false proposition. The underlying logic of these questions is that "appearance in modern society, and the resulting issues of appearance justice and anxiety, are essentially a 'tyranny of the majority'" - "The subtext of modern civilization is that all individuals are individuals who have undergone enlightenment, have their own rational thinking and cautious attitude, and therefore should exercise their equal rights independently. However, modern civilization intentionally or unintentionally regards' should be 'as' actual', because in reality, it is impossible to guarantee that everyone's choices are rational and prudent." The shaping of appearance templates and aesthetic trends under the influence of capital and media today is essentially a 'tyranny of the majority' in the field of aesthetics
"Reality" may only be a fragment of facts
When it comes to the tyranny of the majority, many people immediately think of the internet age. The most typical difference between modern society and traditional society is that it is a huge system with very detailed division of labor, and the Internet pushes this system to the extreme. The physical operation and cooperation between people in the past industrial society have evolved into virtual communication highly dependent on symbolic media in the Internet era.
In the virtual world, although people still believe that "seeing is believing", they must face that this "reality" is often a symbolic fragment of facts. "The same behavior in different contexts will have different explanatory paths; the same behavior expressed in different language symbols will have completely different effects.".
Of course, the Internet has a positive effect, but it does have a negative effect: events are often increased or decreased intentionally or unintentionally in the process of reporting, editing and splicing. Even when individuals interact with each other in the real world, it is often hard to avoid "illocutionary" and "illogical". The Internet, as a technical medium, will only cause more misunderstandings and conflicts.
At the same time, the subjective consciousness mixed in the dissemination of information can also distort people's understanding of events, leading to emotional entanglement, which is also one of the important causes of online violence.
Human beings cannot stop thinking
Individual rationality is regarded as the standard of modern society and the foundation of equality and freedom. However, in reality, everyone cannot guarantee sufficient rationality in the face of complex social facts, but precisely because modern civilization provides the promise of equality and freedom for individuals, people often regard self-expression as a natural and legitimate right. The numerous information brought by the Internet makes it impossible for people to carefully distinguish, so there is a "short chain rationality".
The so-called short chain rationality is defined in the book "Whose Problem" as follows: when modern people "eat melons" and participate in public discussions and express opinions, they actually only make judgments based on the limited information they receive. This rationality is referred to as the "short chain", which refers to the fragmented and scattered nature of information itself. In this situation, as bystanders, the public is actually in a very strange situation: on the one hand, they have to exercise their right and freedom to express their opinions in their hands; on the other hand, they often have to express their opinions in a de contextualized state.
This leads to the fact that "most people have always been 'unaware of the truth', because the explosive bombardment of information, the party style reading comprehension of titles, and the overall de contextualized communication mechanism make it easier for the public to approach events with 'short chain rationality' under limited time and space conditions, that is, to understand and judge events around 'their own behavior', without further questioning the real situation behind them.".
Meng Qingyan also pointed out that what is even worse is that people not only have "short chain rationality", but also have "short and continuous, intense and just long chain emotions". A simple sense of justice is certainly a necessity for an ideal society, but if it evolves into a reckless and overwhelming emotion, even rampant, under the blessing of the masses and collectives, it will be a daunting thing.
Ultimately, whether in the online world or the real world, modern people are often trapped by society. Regardless of whether an individual appears successful, what kind of profession they engage in, and what kind of income they have, they are likely to be doing repetitive work on a daily basis. As for matters such as further education and marriage, they are often unrelated to ideals, preferences, and love.
The problems encountered by humans are not only based on individual conditions, but also require finding causes in society, but there is no standard solution. Throughout one's life, one must face various judgments and choices, and there is no textbook that can provide standard answers. This is what Meng Qingyan wants to tell people in his book "Whose Problem", but no matter what, humans cannot stop thinking.
Meng Qingyan's Question by CITIC Publishing Group
