The
desire to belong is a typical need inherent in many individuals in society
today. The act of conforming to the ideals and behaviour that people expect of
others, thereby restricting the sense of individual freedom and the right to
free expression, is often done because the person relishes basking in the
approval of other people. By doing so, the person experiences a form of
self-subversion – of giving up on one’s personal characteristics and values to
be able to be a “part of the crowd”, and to seek other people’s acceptance.
This is not necessarily a negative trait, especially when following society’s
rules advocates the greater good, such as compliance towards the laws of the
state. However, it becomes counterproductive when the individual’s right to
personal freedom becomes suppressed.
When
people are aware of the growing decline in the organizations and associations
that they perceive they belong to, either due to a marked decrease in quality
and a lack of financial growth, or due to their belief that their opinions are
being suppressed by the majority, then one of the possible consequences is to
exit the particular organization. This is a form of self-subversion; unable to
withstand the demands being exacted of him, or unable to reap the benefits from
staying in the current situation, a person may choose to leave and pursue their
interests elsewhere. This is often an attempt by many to voice their
disapproval of how a particular situation or society is being run, and is not
allowed the ability to speak up and express his thoughts about the matter.
As
an example, consider a country that advocates certain ideals and beliefs, or
engages in practices such as corruption, that the citizen disapproves of. While
he could attempt to voice out his dislike, there may be circumstances wherein
the political climate of the country is such that he runs the risk of
endangering himself or his family should he choose to stand up for his beliefs
and defy his government. Unwilling to take that chance and possibly lose his
life for it, the citizen may now opt for the next best recourse that he can do,
which is to leave the country. In this manner, the citizen’s rights are being
suppressed by the government, but the former is also able exact a certain
revenge. By choosing to migrate to another country, the citizen is depriving
the government of any positive assets and contributions that he can make to the
state. If enough of the population follows this citizen’s solution, then the
country will suffer as a whole from a form of “brain drain”, the lack of human
resources to help improve the country.
There
are still however, some cases where physical leaving the country cannot be
possible. The citizen, for instance, may not have the necessary credentials or
finances to afford an exodus to another country. And may be forced to remain...
while laws may prevent him from physically exiting the country, he may still
choose to “exit” through other means. This involves choosing not to exercise
his right to vote during elections, refusing to take part in any activities
that the government has planned, or even encouraging or participating in groups
that seek to overthrow the government – basically, anything he wilfully does
that is detrimental to the government’s cause and growth.
Notwithstanding,
this type of exit strategy may have just as much negative effects as physically
leaving the county, sometimes even greater. Leaving the country limits the
person’s ability to do further after migrating, but remaining and encouraging
methods to help eliminate or put down the government will affect the country on
a wider scale. This is a form of self-subversion simply because the citizen is
convincing himself that he is doing what is best for the people, either through
a lack of participation, or active interest in groups that seek to fight the
government he finds oppressive. In the end however, he may wind up doing much
more damage not only to himself, but also to his fellow citizens, as the
economic and political stability of the country worsens.
