Modern Romanticism

“A group or a collective is a simplified complexity. What else could be complex, other than the individual? Among society, people are labelled, generalized, and made simple. But that’s society, where groups of various sizes exist. What could be more complicated than an individual, who takes time to understand?”

– Modern Romanticism

There had been an argument, once. That to speak from the standpoint of personal connection has nothing to do with the fight against prejudice from a societal perspective. Although, to correct that, it does, because the only remedy to one’s prejudices is knowledge. Of information that can be obtained, it takes individualized willingness to take to it. However, that information cannot be forced down that individual’s throat, enough for them to care about it. To know about an individual, of their complexities, requires curiosity. The only remedy to prejudice is the personal connection that develops out of receiving this knowledge. As such knowledge can only exist among a complex individual, a group is doomed to simplicity.

Simplifying an individual means to be prejudiced, or to identify them among their group. Whatever group, of majority or minority, a person who is not understood, as an individual, is being simplified through labels, generalizations, etc. One enforces, not dissuades, all notion of prejudice when there’s focus on the group.

If willingness stems from the heart, as it does, then knowledge would reside in a person’s mind. People must display genuine care to receive that knowledge contained in another person’s mind. From another person, their story to tell is knowledge. It is information that, if listened to and explored, would extinguish all manner of prejudice. However, it requires this willingness, which is often replaced with a need to simplify. Where there’s simplification of people, there’s ignorance of those complexities within an individual. For if all it took to remedy prejudice was to focus on a group, the only methods would be to victimize one group through the effort of demonizing another group. One would place certain groups ahead of others, making it important to highlight one group’s loss because of another group’s gain.

Through simplification, all becomes shallow. An oxymoron, such as “knowing race”, become brought up. A race cannot be known, because it is the exact opposite of knowledge. It is identified and understood, at first glance, meaning that anything comprehended at first glance is based in ignorance. Beyond what’s seen as first glance, we have an individual’s complexities. All people have stories to tell, voices to share, though it shouldn’t come from the group/herd. It should come from a singular person. A person’s traumas or other important details pertaining to their individual history should be made as knowledge. A book would be written, or a hundred songs would be sung. These things are not on the surface, and they do not belong with any group. They are depth, itself.