Independence

I'm not really sure what it means, in modern parlance, to be an "independent person" (and it probably means lots of different things), but it seems that independence is generally agreed upon to be a Good Thing, at least in these times. I suppose the combination of the loss of traditional social institutions that implicate identity and the accompanying obsession with Identity that this generation has, has rendered "independence" a virtue, like "tolerance". Financial independence, independence of spirit, the "f__ you" - in - your - face - punk independence, independence in thinking... and so on. It is also perhaps synonymous with self-actualisation.



No one is immune to culture; it's in the air we breathe. I think that I've valued independence from a young age, even though I never articulated it as such. We made our own school lunches, invented our own games, created our own worlds with elaborate maps and pretty much just entertained ourselves. I would thank my mother for this; the being on whom I was totally dependent for at least the first three years of my life.


In my honours year, one of my lecturers wrote on my draft paper "this clearly displays much independent thought". Maybe he was damning me with faint praise, but it was enough to boost my self esteem.



At L'Abri one guy told me "That's because you're too independent." He was talking about traveling into Boston by myself on our days off. A lady later told me that it was not possible to be too independent.

Or is it? Perhaps you really can be too eccentric. It all depends on what your ends are, I guess. If you want to be socially accepted, you do need to be somewhat normalised. But if you want to be a reclusive bush hippie, then go for it.


In the dialouges and discourses of things, being normal is as just important as thinking independently and originally. In philosophy, for example, you must use the lexicon of the current debate so that your argument can be understood, and you must locate your idea in philosophical terms so that it is philosophy.


What about being normal in social circles? Independence might be doing whatever crazy thing enters your head without first moderating it with the norms of your audience/social circle*. Is this being revolutionary or just plain mad and inaccessible? This is not rhetoric, by the way, but these are genuine questions.


Furthermore, "independence" (which I have avoided defining) might be an illusion. As the Bedroom Philosopher sings "High on life and mum's the dealer, yeah/ First eighteen years are free, yeah/ Then you got to start paying rent". You're dependent on your parents, even if you've rejected all their ideologies and traditions and conventions. You're dependent on the state, even if you live in Capitalist America. You're dependent on the media and the fashion industry, which choose the cultural commodities you will identify with. You're dependent on your cultural history and the collective consciousness, which thinks "your" thoughts with you. You're dependent on the farmers who grow your food. You're dependent on the natural world around you, for the seasons, the sun and the rain. And most importantly, you're dependent on Him who is sovereign over the rain, the sun, the seasons, the natural world, and even our created non-natural world of music, media, culture and state.

So you're really just a suckling baby, like that fetus in the deep black of space at the end of 2001 Space Odyssey (the movie).



*Hmm, I'm equating audience with social circle. Is this some pseudo-modern thing to do?