The Majority

Mark Twain has a brilliant quote about conformity. He said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Majority is one of those concepts that has become so loaded by popular culture that we need to jettison what we think about it. Statements like, "I am not part of the majority," or "I know what the majority is," or "The majority is not necessarily a bad thing," or "I can be a part of the majority but still make unique, individual changes," are striking popular, though bias and taint any discussion or investigation into the matter, relinquishing the possibility of neutral and objective realizations or outcomes.

Jettisoning our ideals of majority is key, but we need to ask the right questions. These types of questions are plentiful and can explore the concept without any assumptions. Hence, they will be How questions, rather than Why questions, because How pertains to the mechanisms that bring the concept to life, and Why pertains to the subjective intent placed upon the concept. This may sound like a frivolous and overly formal distinction, however, the concept of majority (as well as other concepts) become loaded because a subjective Why-qualifier is applied rather than an objective How-qualifier.

Objectivity is complex, because it involves asking a How question even if the very word How is not in the question. Thus, a simple but significant demarcator between subjectivity and objectivity is that objectivity gives no particular treatment or entitlement to human thoughts, feelings, or perspectives. So instead of searching for that one word in our search for objectivity (How), adjusting our perspective to acknowledge things on their own terms, without human use or affect, is a good start. This perspective will give us a clearer perspective of the concept of majority because it separates our opinions and teachings about the concept from what the concept truly entails and means.

Ironically, this initial clearing of the conceptual water (objectifying) partially answers how the concept of majority was originally granted such amnesty, or in other words, not socially perceived as potentially toxic: Modern civilization has only permitted us to think and talk about this concept if we have some kind of social safety net, or subjective affirmer. So it is perfectly socially acceptable to talk about not wanting to be in the majority, or that everyone is in some sense a part of the majority, but it is not acceptable, tolerated, or thought as beneficial or possible to argue that we may have the ability to discover and maintain objective means of judging ourselves and others, since objectivity does not grant any subject amnesty or social safety net. Thus, whether or not we agree with the current majority, if we demand there exist a subjective requirement (in any capacity) in each and every one of our affairs, then we are applying a Why-type qualifier, or the subjective mentality, which fundamentally prioritizes and affirms people, their experiences, and their affairs over objective and abstract reality. Hence, we are marketing majority-think even if we say we do not like its product.

We have become so de-sensitized to the harms of subjectivity that it is now socially acceptable to make the conflicting assertions that "No-one can be self-made," and "I am an individual / I know who I am." Listen around, you will hear it. Believe it or not, these two assertions are made in tandem very often in this culture, which will bother anyone asking How-type questions because not only are these statements in conflict, but the realities they bear are wildly different. It is not like saying you like milk both with and without ice, because neither one of those inhibits or implicitly denies the existence of the other. Making the two previous quoted statements literally represent and entail different fundamental perspectives. If it were more popular in our culture to apply objective qualifiers, these statements would immediately be found wanting.

This is not some academic, esoteric exercise available only to those with expensive educations or naturally high intelligence. Each person with a mind can produce objective thoughts, they just need to put the effort in. That is not to say every person will wind up the same, yet quite the opposite, that people can create their individual selves based on objectively judging who they want and need to be. In other words, an objective perspective will stave off the ubiquitous subjectivity and the relativism it has produced.

It is not popular yet to speak about relativism because relativism is on of our culture's primary methods of making subjectivity seem morally and socially marketable. It has resulted in these types of thinkings: 

If you want to have an important conversation with someone, wait until you are in the right mood. 

Not very good at fixing things? Hire someone. Why learn when you can easily pay someone else to do it? 

Things do not seem to "go your way?" Just your luck, right? 

Did you catch the subjectivity? It is hard to miss when you are looking for it. Yet, this culture's majority defers to subjectivity--and its progeny, relativism--over objectivity. Why?

Because it is so cheap and easy. Anyone can do it at any time because it is not entailed like an objective How process. Objective processes are highly entailed because they require us to discover and identify causal linkage, produce multiple forms of evidence, and ask open-ended questions to produce more arguments and even better questions. Objective processes are about exposing a larger reality, but subjectivity, on the other hand, is all about making our reality smaller, more palatable, and user-friendly to us. Hence, we adapt it to suit us, rather than the other way around.

Relativism has become natural and ambient due to how it suits and promotes a subjective perspective. Objectivity is nowadays marginalized to mathematics and other hard sciences, but even then our culture attempts to subjectively infiltrate it with Ultimate assertions. Point being, understanding Twain's quote is not as easy as just agreeing with it as if we knew it all along, yet understanding how a majority perspective may be unknowingly infiltrating our morals and relationships. The only harm in raw, objective honesty is that other people around you may not agree with you or support your objectivity. Which is essentially embodies the modern majority.