Once upon a time, we humans did not experience ourselves as individuals. A wonderful synthesis by philosopher Larry Siedentop1 convinces me that our history (particularly Western history) from ancient times to the present day can be seen as one long journey of progressive creation and embellishment of the individual.
Put it another way. Over time, the very nature of our being has changed, mutated. Which is surely a big deal? The mutations seem to be experienced as spasms that, at first, try aggressively to destroy a currently existing belief system, then moderate themselves. We are in spasm right now. To get anywhere near comprehending it, it helps to look back in time.
Sincerity
To (over)simplify, think of the year 1600 as a ‘hinge in time’. Before then, people throughout Europe knew exactly who they were - not that they probably ever thought about it. Your station in life was that which you were born into. A king was a king. A peasant was a peasant. A blacksmith was a blacksmith. And so on. No need to explain yourself. You were what you were. And the measure of your success was sincerity. Lionel Trilling (1905-1975), an American literary critic, essayist and cultural analyst, explained sincerity as follows:
‘It derived from the Latin word sincerus and first meant exactly what the Latin word means in its literal use - clean, or sound, or pure.’2
So that was it. Your quality in whatever station of life you found yourself was assessed in terms of your commitment to and performance in a predetermined and unalterable role.
Authenticity
But, around 1600, things were changing - mutating. The societal shift was from one where everything was based upon classes of people to one based upon what we now recognize as function systems3.
‘Between the 16th and 18th centuries, European medieval social structures were thoroughly replaced. In the emerging modern world, functional differentiation into a variety of systems constituted a radical reshaping of society. Consequently, society is no longer divided into different strata, or classes of people, but into different functional social spheres such as the economy, education, law, politics and media.’4
Not least, this is where the idea of self-discovery comes in. It spits on the idea that you need to accept who and what you are. It is the source of all those ‘Find out who you really are’ and ‘Unleash the real you’ self-help nostrums. If you think about it, this can lead to fragmentation within society: if everyone is seeking their own uniqueness and fashioning their own presentation to the world, they are more concerned to be distinct from, rather than a part of, a specific group.
Spasm
All of which brings us to the spasm that is the 2020s. Now, surely, we have reached the age of ‘peak-individual’: an age when so many traditional groupings and borders are rejected outright. Not just geographical borders, but the borders between male and female, and even between rationality and irrationality. But, confusingly, the new age seems also to bring with it new borders - borders that had never previously been thought of. So, what form might this latest mutation of human nature take?
Profilicity
In the paper already referenced, Moeller & D’Ambrosio propose a fascinating new idea - Profilicity. Profilicity refers to the use of online presentation, of the self, of ideas, of values, of everything via profiles. This is all about ‘second-order observation’: how other people, the vast majority of whom may not even know or be known by the profiler, rate that which is presented to them.
‘In second-order observation, value – such as financial value, beauty value, moral value or, as we intend to outline here, personal value – is determined by second-order observation ranking and rating mechanisms that determine ‘what average opinion expects the average opinion to be’. Not the ‘object’ (i.e. the product, the university, the face, the human being) itself is observed, but how it is observed by observing agencies, rating mechanisms or review processes that are taken to be representative of formulating ‘public opinion’.’5
Of Ancient Kings and Modern Princes
Which brings me to the title of this piece. It so happens that, at the time of writing, the world is being bombarded with an onslaught of ‘lived experience’ from a married couple who clearly are deeply disenchanted with the British royal family. Harry and Meghan (for, of course, dear reader, it is they) seem to believe that, despite the ecstatic welcome by the British people, and the fairytale wedding, they were horribly done by. Horribly done by to the point of extreme mental discombobulation resulting in suicidal ideation and an imperative to flee. So, they have gone on the warpath, using all of the media that are so readily available these days.
Which leaves us, of course, with the rather-more-than Sixty Four Billion Dollar Question: who will win? I think it hugely fascinating if for no other reason than it is a confrontation between two contrasting mutations.
Royalty is an ancient institution that dates all the way back to the era of Sincerity. Over the centuries the role of the British royal family has moderated, acknowledging Authenticity, so that its function, in the modern era, became that of a figurehead with very little actual power. The underpinning attitude was beautifully summed up in the speech that the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II gave on her 21st birthday:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”6
Service. Duty. These are ancient virtues. And now they face the modern ‘virtues’ of profilicity summarized by Moeller & D’Ambrosio as follows:
The three core aspects of profilicity are (a) distinctness or visibility resulting in quantitative attention, (b) a certain ‘coolness’, or other forms of ‘excellence’ resulting in qualitative acclaim and (c) coherence with generally expected ethical expectations in a given context (e.g. political, academic or aesthetic) resulting in normative approval. The triple-A presentation of identity (i.e. those achieving attention, acclaim and approval) is capable of generating exhibition value.7
A “Yes, you did” / “No, you didn’t” spat would be most undignified so the likelihood is that the British royal family will maintain a dignified silence. Whether, in the current environment, that will prove a winning strategy, remains to be seen.
Thanks for reading.
Siedentop, Larry. Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (2014)
Trilling, Lionel. Sincerity and Authenticity (1971)
See the work of Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998)
Moeller, Hans-Georg & D’Ambrosio, Paul J. Sincerity, Authenticity and Profilicity: Notes on the problem, a vocabulary and a history of identity (Philosophy and Social Criticism 2019, Vol. 45(5) 575-596)
Moeller & D’Ambrosio
Princess Elizabeth, 21 April 1947
Moeller & D’Ambrosio