“假如一間鐵屋子，是絕無窗戶而萬難破毀的，裡面有許多熟睡的人們，不久都要悶死了，然而是從昏睡入死滅，並不感到就死的悲哀。現在你大嚷起來，驚起了較為清醒的幾個人，使這不幸的少數者來受無可挽救的臨終的苦楚，你倒以為對得起他們麼？”
“然而幾個人既然起來，你不能說決沒有毀壞這鐵屋的希望。”
With these words, Lu Xun cried out, and called the Chinese to arms in the wake of the largest change encountered ever in Chinese history, in a period when I would say is the closest China has come to modernity and civilization. It is hugely ironic how this all has been reversed by the rise of CCP, reverting us, de facto, back to the ages of imperialism, corruption and extreme crony Capitalism. However, I suspect that nothing has actually changed. The narrow mindset of the Chinese, fixated only on material goals and competing with others for a better future for themselves has never changed throughout history, passing on generation to generation, forever enforcing this regime of tyranny and nepotism.
Yet, I shall not talk about such a macroscopic issue (with me being not a fit person to make a political commentary anyway). I wish to explore the boundary between coercion and willingness. If all (significant) actions reduce to some factors beyond our control, or simply due to the drive known as "human instincts".
"Human instincts", though possibly driven by the society, could also simply be a will to survive and thrive, to stand the test of time and ever transient conditions. I suppose they are mutually encompassing though, since humans are inherently (and perhaps unfortunately) social. It could also be interpreted as a tendency to fall back to an equilibrium state, or the "comfort zone".
I consider every person as having a certain amount of energy to expend. To leave the "comfort zone" requires a certain amount of "activation energy". However, once this energy barrier is broken, one might settle to a new equilibrium, in which one's experience has changed one's perception of the world, and as such his/her "comfort zone" will have changed.
What makes us unique, then, could be inferred as different perceptions of the "comfort zone". Some may find socializing relaxing, where being in a party would be his/her comfort zone. For some, perhaps staying in would be preferable. I pass no judgment to any kind of interpretation towards "comfort zones" as long as basic morality is not violated. (what this standard is perhaps warrants another discussion separately)
Could we infer from this that there is, in reality, a boundary that consistently restrict free will, if "free will" is to be interpreted as complete spontaneity in action, limiting to the speed of the freely thinking mind? It seems that any reference to "free will" necessitates comparison. Say in "感冒" by 西西, the protagonist is described to spontaneously go watch a football match in spite of the gender stereotype imposed on housewives. Free will here then refers to removing the tether of social perception of the type of person defined by the circumstances of the protagonist. However, in this vastly multivariate world, what, precisely, is the tether? What is preventing us from becoming truly the masters of ourselves?
If we look back in history, where people's lives are always confined by social norms that do seem quite eccentric and barbaric currently, such as absolute loyalty to superiors, the emperor, to a certain religion, certain practices etc. Today we are glad that we have grown out of the lives that had to be lived by people of the past (for most, at least). Nevertheless, we could always extend this logic to conclude that our lives would be considered conservative and uncivilized in 50 years, and their lives would again be subjected to such perception by those 50 years later, and so on.
As humans grasp greater and greater understanding of nature, engineers are ever more able to harness the power of nature to humanity's benefit. What will this mean for freedom? On one hand, we could have the rise of a technocracy of malice and inhumane minds, controlling crucial secretive weapons to threaten the world. On the other hand, we could eliminate the suffering of those in poverty by increased technology, leading to greater capabilities of production and trade.
Thus, the tether is a social phenomenon, and this progresses quite randomly through history. We know not what future holds, and what challenges face us even in the vicinity of the present. What does not change, however, is the human instinct: To survive and thrive.
This is why I have to come to the conclusion that humans possess a "slave-oriented mind". Our actions are eventually defined by our identity, our place in the society. Even if we live in the so-called free world right at this moment, it is incorrect to say that we are not tethered to anything. the meta-narrative is omnipresent, and spontaneous actions performed by a human in the matter of tens of years cannot possibly change anything.
There are exceptions though. A person may have such an expanded world view that his/her actions are directly aimed at improving the livelihood of those in the future. He/she may work tirelessly, perpetually and perhaps extremely staunchly simply for the betterment of the world. Yet, I do think that this is quite a rarity, and in groups this is even more of an extremity. If his/her goals deviate from the meta-narrative of the society by a great deal, a very large resistance is bound to be formed and he/she would not be able to achieve much unless under miraculous circumstances. He/she may then be deemed as an idol, a benefactor of history. Yet, more often he/she may gain notoriety instead, and even more so may just fade in failure, never to be heard of again. I daresay that the average human would not be so brave to put his/her life on the lines for such a vague concept of humanity.
It is a saddening fact that uncivil and horrendous acts, ideas and governors continue to exist unabashedly in the present day, with so many people astonished by the stupidity and acts of evil produced repeatedly. It is even more saddening that these people simply cannot be stopped. When the evils of the present stop, more will rise. It is simply human nature for everyone to ignore these acts and stay down. For one person to leave his comfort zone, it may not require much. For a million to leave their comfort zone though is something that only exists in fiction. Probabilistically it is almost as if all gas particles of a room would suddenly coalesce together into a solid ball and come down crashing on the status quo. We count of thermodynamics that this simply will not happen, just as I count on human instincts that this world, no matter how I look at it, is eventually nihilistic.
I admire the courage of Lu Xun. Eventually, quite metaphorically saying, the iron house did break down after his life. Little did he know, though, that the iron house was, in fact, contained within another iron house with walls twice the thickness.
