Η ανάγκη του “ανήκειν” σε ομάδες και ο κίνδυνος για την ατομική βούληση. Γράφει ο Στέφανος Παπανικολάου.
Man is by nature a social being, and as such, has the need to belong to a group—whether that be a sports team, an organization, a community, a musical ensemble, and the list goes on and on. The issue arises when this human function loses its essence as a fundamental element of an individual’s social life and exceeds the boundaries set by society itself to maintain the much-desired balance. At that point, the motive for healthy interaction is redefined, and the “natural” expression of this need gradually becomes distorted, taking on a different form – more like a commemorative plaque than a meaningful action. Such incidents of distortion and corruption of the concept of belonging have primarily been observed in the field of sports, where the element of mass participation is particularly prominent, though similar distortions also have more serious consequences in professional settings.
“Already in ancient times and the Middle Ages, the idea of teams within the framework of athletics, opposing sides, and competition between cities, villages, and factions was something real.”
Specifically, a fan can be anyone, as this aspect —the desire to belong to a group distinct from other members of society—is an inherent personal right. No one can deprive an individual of this need, which arises either indirectly through early participation in groups or later as a conscious realization expressed through a clear, imperative action to acquire a collective identity. Already in ancient times and the Middle Ages, the idea of teams within the framework of athletics, opposing sides, and competition between cities, villages, and factions was something real. The causes and effects are not novel. However, examining the present, it is evident that, in such a process, due to the element of mass participation and the transformation of teams into profitable industries with thousands of loyal followers, incidents of vandalism occur, confirming the violent side of human nature. And if you ask me why such behaviors emerge, it is like asking why wars happen.
Paranoia in individuals is relatively rare. However, in groups, parties, nations, and eras, it is more the rule than the exception.
“Fanaticism, after all, is a behavior that consumes the weak, offering them anonymity and the opportunity to vent their frustrations”
Nonetheless, while we may choose to ignore the looming crisis and avoid addressing it in the way the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, did, we must ask ourselves what occurs when group belonging overrides individual freedom and will, and a person ceases to be what we call in French an “électron libre.” That is, when individuals lose their identity as human beings and live solely for the group. They have freedom of choice only based on political, national, geographical, and other symbolic characteristics of each group. In this way, they identify with the group, reinforcing its dynamics while simultaneously strengthening their personal ideas and opinions. Then, a new phenomenon emerges, which sociologists have termed group polarization.
Under these circumstances, the individual becomes a mere number, existing only to serve the interests of the descendants of “noble families,” who continue the work of their predecessors and assume the role of feudal lords and protectors. This leads to a vicious cycle, a toxic environment reminiscent of the mafia-like behaviors seen in films that push us backward rather than forward. With the exception of a few, driven by their own moral restraints and untouched by such needs, the majority succumb to these weaknesses. Fanaticism, after all, is a behavior that consumes the weak, offering them anonymity and the opportunity to vent their frustrations, to release their anger for that one moment (and again tomorrow), before returning to their mundane daily lives.
Once again, the winner is the “nomenklatura”, the privileged class with close, almost emotional ties to the state—or rather, to states within the framework of its transnational character—and it is this same group that continues to play a significant role in multiplying its followers. Behind the team stands a conglomerate of businesses that, now unashamedly using any means—including buying media channels—to control and direct the three branches of power to its favor. Thus, we are no longer talking about sportsmanship, but about the murders of young people, hooligans, stabbings, Molotov cocktails, dangerous neighborhoods and times, and, of course, a number that constantly haunts my thoughts: a 38% predicted increase in domestic violence incidents after the Euro, regardless of whether the country loses or wins.
And as much as Dostoevsky believed that common sense and science would radically reform and rightly guide human nature, I declare that man is a being full of flaws, with weaknesses, wounds, and scars, an inevitable part of the human condition. Only after personal effort, accompanied by continuous resistance to this rising norm, will change and (anti-)reform occur in the broader economic, political, and cultural world. Such behaviors will not disappear entirely, but they will be significantly reduced. Then, perhaps, this pulsating topicality will cease to be a contemporary concern and transform into a thing of the past. For now, we must content ourselves with those who seem—likely deliberately—disinterested in such phenomena, which function as a leveling machine for the human species. On the contrary, this state apparatus, which has been governed for decades by the same dynasties, shamelessly misleads the public once again.
“The solution lies not in the eradication of group identity but in the reformation of its meaning and purpose.”
For supporters of rationalism, the pressing issue is the possibility that there may be no further opportunities for return, “transformation,” or escape from the current situation. Humanity might become trapped in an unyielding “reality” that shows no mercy to its own elements or creators, growing increasingly independent of popular will. This “reality” could direct the masses without fear of losing them or facing rebellion.
And I certainly do not aim to be labeled a catastrophist or pessimist, but it is clear that this is a problem that contaminates society daily, turning it into something unpleasant and unsightly.
In light of all these observations, the question then arises: what hope is there for a society so deeply entrenched in these distorted systems of belonging and fanaticism? The solution lies not in the eradication of group identity but in the reformation of its meaning and purpose. We must return to a sense of community that encourages personal growth. The responsibility for this shift falls not only on individuals but also on the structures that perpetuate these toxic forms of belonging—whether they are media conglomerates, political entities, or economic elites. Education and awareness should foster critical thinking and autonomy, nurturing a public that values diversity of thought. Only by reimagining the role of groups in society, as vehicles for connection and enrichment rather than instruments of division, can we begin to unravel this web of destructive behavior and restore a more balanced, human approach to collective identity.
Συντάκτης: Στέφανος Παπανικολάου
Οι απόψεις που αναφέρονται στο κείμενο είναι προσωπικές του αρθρογράφου και δεν εκφράζουν απαραίτητα τις θέσεις του What Politics Means και της συντακτικής ομάδας.
Απαγορεύεται η αναδημοσίευση του άρθρου από άλλες ιστοσελίδες χωρίς άδεια του What Politics Means. Επιτρέπεται η αναδημοσίευση των δύο έως τριών πρώτων παραγράφων με την προσθήκη ενεργού link για την ανάγνωση της συνέχειας στο What Politics Means. Οι παραβάτες θα αντιμετωπίσουν νομικά μέτρα.