this machine kills itself

There are only two categories of concepts: that which is natural and that which is socially constructed. Some fields of psychiatry would have you believe that what makes up a person is natural. That their personality, who they are and what they struggle with, all come from physical attributes of their body and mind. Oxytocin, serotonin, dopamine, cortisol, and really anything that can be correlated with behavior gets tied into the pathologized psychiatric model of behavior. These are not causes for actions, but the misaligned cogs in the metaphorical machine of our body. But this is no way to measure who we are, as our bodies have long been proven to be shaped by our environment. Our identities are not innate, and everything we are is something we are made to be.

Human nature certainly exists in one way; all human beings have minds structured for survival. Like any animal our nervous system is intended to provide instinctual ability to navigate the world: eating, drinking, resting, and defending ourselves appropriately. As social creatures with the longest period of childhood where we are reliant on others, a part of our survival is also dependent on our ability to navigate and maintain a social structure. This is why despite being born nearly identical, from the minute we are born we are learning and adapting to our place within the family and society.

It is not a stretch to say that the development of our social structures far outpaced evolutionary development. The process of learning one’s place in society may have been simple when that society was made up of less than a thousand people, but differentiating oneself is no simple task in a world of billions. The roles people must take in this world are far more complex and varied than anything the innate structure of a brain can account for. As new roles for society are constantly constructed, so to are the people who must fill them. It is by no surprise that as a society we have done much to simplify them.

All roles we take on are socially constructed: girl, parent, employee, manager, wife, citizen. It is well understood historically that these roles are not fixed culturally or temporally; the expectations and allowances of each role change with time and place. While we are naturally social creatures, our social structures are unsurprisingly socially constructed and thus socially reproduced. The defining feature of any social structure is the hierarchy of power. The family, workplaces, governments, clubs, they all have those with power and those without. It is undeniable that a majority of people conform when confronted with that power, especially when we are younger and at our most reliant on others.

Within the family, children are reliant on society to provide for them and thus need to accept whatever is imposed upon them if that care is threatened by the social structure. This is the only natural inclination we have in our social behavior: an instinct for our survival through social survival. If a baby can't convince someone to feed them, they die. This instinct acts almost directly opposite of our development as an individual. Rather than becoming someone who has boundaries, likes, dislikes, and a unique perspective on life, we must obey or else. At age 3 that ‘or else’ has to be taken seriously since any risk of losing your caretaker is life or death. If our own feelings must be ignored to survive, we never develop a sense for our emotions at all.

While reactions to this emptiness are varied, the most common fall easily along the lines of power. Those who find power continue to reproduce the complex structures that grant that power, while those without fulfill the role that their survival demands. This fundamentally pushes people into two roles. The first being that of power. Depending on your culture and point of view, you may call them the man, the authority, the predator, the narcissist, the abuser, the dominant, the ‘emotional vampire.’ The caricature of a bully who has not developed feelings and attempts to use others they can control to fill this emptiness. They can't admit their own emptiness even to themselves, as that could be used against them to weaken their hold on power. If someone cannot develop internally, then they must prove their worth externally. They often don’t do it consciously, as they just take whatever they can get and use manipulation and their position of power to find ways around being told no.

That person who learns to obey then being often called the woman, the victim, the traumatized, the ‘empath’, the vessel, the submissive. This is someone who has covered up any trace of their own feelings in order to maintain their safety and keep the peace. Slowly learning to watch the world around them to preemptively appease threats to their safety and keep what little they have. They wouldn’t even realize they were empty, as such questions prove to only cause more trouble in their uncertain lives. It is far safer for them to remain ignorant for their safety, just like in childhood. It can seem fine on the outside, as they seem smart, clever, observant, detail-oriented, and polite. It becomes incredibly important and convenient for everyone around them that they remain useful, but more so obedient.

The obvious question being what about people who are empowered and disempowered in different environments or times. Take for example a school bully, a middle manager, an abusive mother, or a violent husband who at work is simply an employee. In all these examples they are someone who has power over others, while still not being on top of the hierarchy or having absolute control. Their actions still follow the same playbook, seize power and exercise it over others for emotional fulfillment. Even if at the end of the day they have to contend with their own patriarch, that disempowerment only serves to deepen their need for control over their attachments. Perhaps instead consider when that ‘clever’ powerless person finally gets their day. They get promoted, married, have kids, or otherwise get control over what they have. Unless they have already contended with that emptiness, in an act of perceived necessity they will pick up the playbook of power; a continued act of compliance as they believe their attachments will be taken from them if they do not fulfill their role.

Neither side of this exchange can be happy, neither will be fulfilled, but neither can innately escape these habits for there is nothing else that they know. Even when they do receive kindness or safety it is seen as either something deceitful or something that is undeserved. Those of us with control will never relinquish it in fear of losing our only source of satisfaction, while those without control will remain compliant so long as they believe that the power held over them is natural and dictates their survival. The thing about power is that it too is socially constructed. The roles which empower and disempower us only dictate survival if society continues to allow them to do so. This is why the controller will attempt to isolate and manipulate those they can get their hooks into by imposing a fictitious role on them. By convincing someone else they can’t get what they want elsewhere, they don’t even need to have power; to the powerless who only want acceptance at any cost, the aesthetic of kindness will look like a blessing so long as they are kept from the genuine kindness of others.

The first step in escaping this dynamic is clearly to recognize it and all that it entails for what it is: a game. For most of us we can’t just stop playing yet, as there are dozens of structures which thrive off of our compliance. Knowing the rules really only serves in creating better strategies, methods for getting ‘what you want.’ Though as was established, the emptiness does not know what it wants, only what it needs. It would be easy for someone to get stuck here, knowing the game and only using its rules to meet their needs hoping that will satisfy the emptiness. That emptiness isn’t an unmet need, but an unmet self.

Only when our needs are met irrespective of our role and how well we play it can we develop our internal feelings and ultimately individuate ourselves. As surprising as it can be, there are plenty of people who always had this and have always been able to be themselves, usually only because someone with power over them decided to wield it responsibly (or so irresponsibly that there is no way to ignore the lie). No matter who you are, you will be able to cultivate your internal world if your social safety is unconditional. It sounds simple when put this way, but none of us can simply liberate ourselves from our past simply by learning the truth. We've likely had 18 or more years learning and practicing these horrible roles.

Everyone is always trying to individuate, as it is necessary for emotional health, but once survival dictates our roles for us our development will mainly take the form of more complex survival mechanisms. There are hundreds of trauma responses we inevitably take on in response to threats to our survival, but only one self that we can cultivate. By the time we turn 18 nearly everyone has been embedded at the bottom of a social structure for years, likely growing a variety of trauma responses to the dangers of their family structure. Even if that unconditional security were acquired later, our internal world would be incomparable to the personality we had crafted to protect ourselves through childhood. Even understanding our trauma, we have no chance of learning to be an autonomous agents while struggling against behaviors which only serve to protect us from society rather than integrate with it.

This is a terrible form of exclusion; one where the person inside is gone, but their body continues to serve power. It is unsurprising that despite how despicable this process may sound that this pattern is able to be reproduced over and over again. Those who are made victim may never even know that which was taken from them or by whom, which is the intent of those who manipulate them for power. It is as if they simply never existed. So long as there is a power to abuse, there will be more empty individuals eager to either get ahold of the reins or escape their wrath. The more powers that influence us, the less self determination we are afforded as the demands of holding or serving that power mold us more and more.

The cure is the same either way. Truth and Love. No matter how suppressed, our gut feelings cannot lie. It will be confusing sorting out where feelings originate, whether they reflect an internal view or an external one. An easy example of this is the realization that we forgive or shame others for things we would not forgive or shame ourselves. It is seeking this truth that allows us to remove the influence of that power over us. If we can learn to hear our internal self instead of our anxieties, then we have already won the first battle. Even when power demands us to act in its accordance, we need not let it dictate our thoughts. It is only from this position that we can dismantle power, choosing when to disobey and to what end. If we are lucky, we can simply walk away from the fictitious power that guarantees us nothing.