Outsiders and rebels –Being out of any framework and against the current.


(The first 51 pages of the book: “Outsiders and rebels” – translated from Hebrew).

Gabriel Raam

All rights are reserved to Gabriel Raam 2022

Consciousness way publications.

(Translated from Hebrew by the author).

Emails:   gabyraam89@gmail.com

There is no permission for coping or any other commercial use of the material from this book from the the author: Gabriel Raam

A quote:

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes … the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. … You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things. … They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

Steve Jobs



Part One: The Society

1.4 Individual and society

2. Conformity

3. Groupthink

4. The “them”

5. The power of the group over the individual

6. The social establishment and the realization of the potential of the soul

7. The average ones

8. Terms and Conditions

Part Two: The Other

1. The exception

2. On Exceptions and outstanding

3.Spiritual fringe dwellers

  Networks and points .4

5. The outsider

6. What and who is the outsider?

7. The experience of the outsider

8. The world through the outsider glasses

9. The 2 levels of the outsider

10. from an outsider to a rebel

Part Three: Rebels, Rebellion and Rebellion

  1. Who is the rebel?
  2. The history of the revolt
  3. Existential rebellion
  4. Existentialist rebels
  5. The rebellious human
  6. To be a rebel
  7. Rebels and pseudo-rebels (fashion rebels versus authentic rebels).
  8. Rebels in cinema & pop and rock culture
  9. The recognition of society in the rebel

        10. The Hidden rebels  

        11. The Warrior Rebel

         12. Rebellion as an antithesis to culture

         13. On rebels and revolutionaries; Difference and similarity

Part Four: Rebellion against existing establishments

  1. Rebellion against what?
  2. Rebellion in the professional establishment
  3. Rebellion in the medical establishment
  4. Rebellion in the psychiatric /psychological establishment
  5. A rebellion in the philosophical establishment
  6. A rebellion in the academia and science
  7. Rebellion in the Patriarchal Establishment (Feminist rebellion)
  8. Rebellion in the Technological-Electronic Establishment
  9. A revolt against the Israeli mentality and a post-Zionist

     10. Rebellion in the religious establishment

  11. Rebellion in the artistic establishment 

Part Five: Radical Theories

  1. Radical theories
  2. Theory 1: The outsiders as scapegoats
  3. Theory 2: Neurosis as a drug
  4. Theory 3: The rebellion Therapy
  5. Theory 4: The conspiracy theory
  6. Theory 5: Rebellion as a way of development and evolution
  7. Theory 6: Fragmentation and inversion
  8. Theory 7: The approach of Rabbi Nachman of Breslau
  9. Theory 8: Under the conquest of cosmic forces

Part six: The Encyclopedia of creative outsiders and rebels

  1. Introduction to the Encyclopedia
  2. Encyclopedia entries

Part Seven: And to conclude

  1. Terms
  2. Epilogue / Dedication
  3. Late additions

Part Eight: Bibliography and Sources

  1. Bibliography by topic
  2. Sources and comments
  3. Introduction

Man is born and comes into the world alone and leaves it alone. And between these two, from the moment of his birth until the day of his death, he will find himself surrounded by people, planted in society – almost at all times and wherever he will turn.

However, in order that a person stand on his own ground (go through a process of emotional maturity) – he must realize fundamentally, that as an individual creature his greatest freedom lies between him and himself, there is the source of discovery and self-actualization.

Since this is a process that is not easy at all – and the pressure to cuddle up in society outweighs the effort required to learn to stay among yourself (or only with some rare few like of your kind) – it has been found that most people prefer to congregate into the embrace of the collective society, rather than stay in company themselves. Only a minority fails to join the majority. Trying to join but being left out, out of everyone else. Different, not acceptable, not integrated. They are called outsiders.

Now, what makes them to ‘deserve’ to get this stigma of the outsider? on the outside it is them being different, but on the inside the outsiders I am referring to here (not the criminals and rapists of course) are special, rare, unique, have special talents, carry some sort of a high spark, high sensitivity, and they have the talent of seeing the world and human as it is and as they are, born with some extra soul quality, and some of them possess a spiritual tendency.

In daily life – on the one hand they have not yet found themselves (not in a steady job nor in a steady couple ship) – and this personal uniqueness that has begun to emerge from them does not allow them to join the herd of ‘togetherness’, conventionality and ‘normality’. And society, once it recognized the outsider, she immediately becomes suspicious and points to them the stigma: different. Most outsiders carry this label as a ‘mark of Cain’, a curse. A minority of them manages to translate their diversity into art (from writing books to joining a rock band), some finding their way into fringe groups, like: cults, sects and various orders and new age groups. But there they become more likely to become even more herd like, stemming from their deep wish to belong to some sort of social order.

And those who remain outside the field of art or the marginal-alternative/spiritual groups- remain outsiders, suffer from the stigma and continue to be deserted and out, or they can do the most difficult task of them all, to which an internal maturity is required; which is: to adopt their ‘abnormality’ to their hearts, as a personal identity, and become outsiders out of consciousness and self-choice.

An outsider out of consciousness is the one who opposes, standing against – not just as a stranger, as another – but as a refuser, as a denier, as saying “no”. And whoever says “no” is a rebel, as Abler Camus says in his classic book: “The rebel”[1]: “A rebel is a man who says no’’.

– This is in short the thesis of the book: The only salvation for the outsider is to become a rebel.

Internal Order of the book: The book begins with an examination of concept of conformity and group pressure operated on the individual to be like everyone else. The book continues with the concept of being a personal exception (An outsider). The only way to become out of it is to transform being an outsider into becoming a rebel. 

The book later dealt with the description of the various establishments against which the rebellious man goes against. The book goes on to try to explain the outsiders and rebellion from the perspective of the rebel and the outsider themselves – and presents extraordinary (radical) theories in their approach to the issue of outsiders and rebellion. The book ends with an encyclopedia of creative rebels and outsiders, trying to do justice to at least some of them and bring a selection from their words.

Gabriel Raam

Hod Hasharon, Israel. 2022

Part One: Society

According to psychologist Otto Rank, man lives between a kind of two magnets, each of which pulls him in his own direction, one magnet comes from within, and he embodies the need to be individual, to fulfill a personal and unique self-potential, to be authentic. The second magnet comes from outside, from the direction of society and it embodies the need to be acceptable, to belong, to receive approval from the rest of human beings and from a large and powerful body; The company.

Obedience to each of these two ‘magnets’ comes at a price;

The price of going after the personal magnet is to stand out, to be different from others, to expose yourself, to invite stigma, criticism and even discrimination. And another price is the struggle, such a person will constantly be in an effort to maintain his individual identity lest he assimilate into everything else.

And the price of walking in the social groove is of course and first of all, the swallowing, the loss of self; Society commands the person to give up the inner voice for behavior and life that is no different from that of other citizens of society, and this often leads to the dissolution of the individual identity and at later stages – even to the death of that personal identity.

But there are also rewards; The reward in relation to following the inner voice, is in strengthening the self-personality, and in creating an inner center of gravity, which gives inner power, and gives way and direction to a person in a confused and wayless world, in light of the voice of intuition; That is, man receives guidance and help from his self, he creates his life from within. And already Augustine wrote about this many years ago: “Do not ask to go out; return to yourself; the truth resides in the inwardness of man.” (This is also the quote that concludes Husserl’s story: “The Partisan Logics”).

And what is the reward of union with the social magnet? Well there is no doubt that union with the social magnet alleviates the pain and frustrations of personal existence in an uncertain and cold world for its inhabitants. Personal conflicts become less important and bothersome due to general problems and issues such as; Politics, economy, military threat, etc. And as a person becomes more involved, accepted or successful in society, the message he receives will be: ‘You are fine’, we approve of you, and any internal frustration or conflict will pale and lose their power in light of the following reassuring and encouraging message from society.

But presenting things as a conflict that every person experiences in his life, between two magnets, is inaccurate, because in most cases there is no conflict, except in not many cases – usually the social magnet wins.

And this victory has been going on for a long time; For a long time human society has come together and taken life from the hands of the individuals. For a long time the individual has not met his life, as a path to self-fulfillment, realizing potential and discovering what is possible for him in terms of what lies within him. (But as an excess charge that often hinders him from integrating into the social array in which he finds himself).

For a long time, society has become an organized, powerful, economic and educational body – with technology, an establishment and an effective and efficient bureaucratic system – whose power and activity come at the expense of the personal path of the person who finds himself – lost – in the huge space of bodies, systems, organizations and procedures.

All this must flood to the surface some questions; First, where does this immense power of society come from? Why the voice of individuals is silenced and finds a place mainly in art; In prose or allegorical and metaphorical writings, and almost completely absent in overt and open conversations and encounters, or in direct and unambiguous essays? How is it that in such a pluralistic, democratic, and freedom of expression society – still the center of gravity of the individual – in it – is found mainly in the social context, and in social, impersonal realization. How did it happen that personal realization and inner life – became negligible language coins in mostly marginalized groups (new era), and that most common conversations revolve around what people do professionally, where they spend, where they went, what happens in politics, economics, countries, nations, etc. . Where has the importance of the arena of the individual in his units gone? How it is that the individual only becomes important when he is part of some social establishment, contributes to that establishment significantly (manager or senior employee).

Our society rules the huge and multiple rule over the individual, the personal and the private. If so these are two magnets; The company magnet and the sole magnet. And it’s clear who wins. But let’s take a closer look at one of them separately.

A. The ‘magnet’ of the individual:

We have all studied history, but there is an interesting phenomenon that arises and is observed only when examining ‘human history’ with an examining eye; Then we discover an interesting thing: we do not find there the individual, his suffering, his hopes, his happiness, the meaning of his life, etc., (it remains for the authors of the stories, and the bodies of realities, in novels, etc.), where we find only the many. The individual does not exist in history.

Indeed, human history is full of great and vast happenings, which happen to peoples and nations, societies and cultures, but all this is a smokescreen behind which not all individuals are seen. We do not talk about the mental state of the individual in different periods, about the change made in his level of consciousness, in the state of his being, and not even in his happiness, in his longings. All this remains for writers and other bodybuilders of all kinds. And the people who are not part of a group that influenced society – are left out of the historical picture, marginal and isolated.

Eleanor Rigby

“ah, look at all the lonely people, ah, look at all the lonely people

Elinor rigby picks up the rice in the church where the wedding has been

lives in a dream

waits at the window, wearing the face that she keeps in the jar by the door

who is it for.

all the lonely people, where do they all come from?

all the lonely people, where do they all belong?

father mckenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear

no one comes near

look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there’s nobody there

what does he car

Chapter 2 Conformity

From the dawn of our childhood, we have been under tremendous pressure to be absorbed into various social settings. We are told that if we fail to channel the energies of the self that revolutionizes us – in the direction of integration within the social framework – it will lead others to the conclusion that something is screwed up in us.

In many hidden ways, we are subjected to a tremendous pressure on the part of society, to abandon the inner, personal center of gravity, and to settle on a social center of gravity (profession, studies, etc.). This pressure entails the demand to align with social norms, to be like everyone else, not to be different. The explanation for the power of society’s tremendous influence in shaping the life of the individual lies in the understanding of the concept of “conformity.”

The term conformity, describes the tendency of the individual to accept the rules of society and the norms that are customary in it, in order to belong to it. In other words, since man is a creature with social tendencies, he has an inherent tendency to want to belong socially – in order to gain the approval and daughter of belonging

The need to belong socially is driven by the individual’s desire to gain “that he is okay”. Belonging to a workplace, nationality, religion or state, gives the individual considerable identity and benefits. By virtue of his group affiliation he receives important rewards. In general, a group has much more power than an individual and its ability to protect its members, to achieve for them things that they could not achieve as individuals. The more cohesive and powerful the group, the greater its tendency to enforce norms and create conformity. Usually the majority straightens out what is acceptable or what is expected of it. This is well seen in the surge film, where a charismatic teacher manages to prove to his class that Nazism was not a solitary and extraordinary phenomenon of madness but a dynamic that could occur in any society. And perhaps the madness and loss of a human photographer – it is easier for them to happen among many than

The individual lives in a state of constant tension and conflict between social values ​​and individual values. This conflict can be described in a struggle between two values: the need for dirt in sympathy You must filter out the values ​​of the society in which you live and agree to let go of giving expression to your sense of justice. For your motives and sometimes also for the genius when these are inconsistent with the social approach. On the other hand if you stand up for yours and insist on giving expression to your perceptions when there are none

Appropriate to society’s perceptions – risk harsh reactions and ruin your status in society. To bring the individual closer to social values, society exerts pressure in direct and indirect ways – and whoever turns his back on his efforts, soon finds himself cut off from the social oxygen pipe, (or, as a light finds his way to a non-conformist fringe group whose members turn their backs on the mainstream social approach). Paradoxically, it is precisely there that the pressure for conformity is much stronger (it follows) that we are all at one time or another facing the fate of choosing between the voice of society and the inner voice. The choice to sympathize with others, while giving up what is right in his eyes

Of the individual is the phenomenon of conformity The need for aura allows society to make it behave in the ways it accepts it when the threat implied by irrations is: “If you are exceptional – you will not be back.” The Mir conformity of the individual is also influenced by his social status; Popular group members can afford to express opposing views of the group and not succumb to pressure (up to a certain limit). In contrast, the isolated and snooty friends – who want to make the same suggestions, will have to be more conformist – so that their voice is heard and accepted.

The fear of being exceptional is fueled by a range of factors, the most prominent of which is related to the degree of self-esteem of the individual. People with low self-esteem generally tend to succumb to much more peer pressure than those with high self-esteem. Also, successful people tend to be less fully compliant than those who have a history of failures.

There are situations in which the individual decides to adhere to his version and his personal justice, even if that justice is inconsistent with the social norm. This situation is called non-conformity, which is defined as “the individual’s freeing from behavior according to an accepted social norm.”

In his book Demanding God (Yedioth Ahronoth 2002) Dr. Yair Caspi calls the conformists the name: “Gourmet workers”. At the beginning of the chapter on idolatry (p.

210) He writes the following:

[9:36, 10.11.2021] gabyraam89: 22 + Part One: The Company

Naturally and awnings are effective and take initiative and responsibility,

Do not give up

For others, tools one way or another, it seems that education has made independent decisions and not even those that require moral courage to make – but mostly directs it to give up adapting itself to darkness to a squabble.

In our society.

A man who goes to a ruined carpenter and a fresh carpenter the conspirator here on Reut Tchal on various opinions that the culture with the consonant will face harsh reactions at firstrrrrlichen and algot disregard and in extreme cases even violently but by most indoctrination and will try to persuade him to back away from his abnormal pasture. If he continues to hold on to it – he will encounter a rejection that passes quietly, below the surface, without easing penalties. For example, one of the purposes of conversation in social gatherings, is to empower wisdom through the stories that people tell each other. The numbers are in agreement with Carobi, who said that the cold was on the group. If in a conversation about a topic that is happening behave from what is acceptable in the group. Immediately the members of the group try to recite a furrow. It is done in such a pleasant, casual, and covert way that it is difficult to point it out, but to the rhodynamics of now reserving reservations from the words of the utterant, in “Let me fix it.”

Ignoring or erupting, etc. The problem is not that a particular group or society defends its beliefs and opinions nor the existence of a “permissible” and “forbidden” system – but the aggressive, mediocre and intolerant way society shows towards those whose views are inconsistent with her

Which is acceptable.

This shows that most people do not come at all to the search, let alone the formation, of independent evils, and this is because businesses align with the evils common in the sector to which they belong.

The great problem with conformity is not its very existence, but the fact that the transition from a single mind to a majority knowledge is almost always approx.

Part 3- Group Thinking

Square we will expand because people in the herd and go crazy in the herd, they will be able to return to their senses slowly and one by one.

Charles Sky


Some time before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli army already had information that clearly indicated the military readiness of the Arab states and the possibility of launching a war against Israel. But this idea was so far removed from the existing conception and so contrary to the consensus of those days (“impossible”), that it was rejected outright, and those who knew or darkened otherwise – humbled their minds.

Changing the place of independent critical thinking – in liberated thinking – is known as “group thinking”. In this situation, the individual’s ability to make the right decisions out of discretion and correct discernment is impaired. The phenomenon of “group thinking” reveals the great power that the group has over the individual and the indirect and covert ways in which the group takes to sterilize the individual from independent thinking and enslave it to its patterns.

The influence of the group is so strong that it is not limited in time or place and does not depend on the physical presence of the group members. In fact we are in the group all the time, even when we are alone. Even then we still weight our responses by how they would have been received in the group; The group becomes a spiritual authority that influences our decisions, whether it is a group of friends, an ethnic group, a professional group (doctors, lawyers), a group of teenagers, a group of friends, the working group, etc. We are all in a brace of several groups within each other, each of which operates a subconscious pressure cooker, which causes us to lose our ability to properly assess the big picture.

For Wing Janis’ group thinking is characterized by a fear of innovation and a tendency to outright reject new ideas. Anyone who has ever tried to come up with an innovative idea or proposal for a drastic change in one group or another, probably remembers the reactions: from disregard, or disagreement, to opposition and even aggression. Anything that may undermine the cohesion of the group or threaten its stability – is rejected. And since each member of the group strives to take part in the general agreement so as not to be unusual – a youth in the group tends to reach an agreement as soon as possible. Of course, this tendency creates a superficial and ineffective attitude towards solving problems. The group will ignore independent ideas, hurry to reach a general agreement, at the expense of proper judgment of the situation. It will not examine all the options, it will whitewash the issues superficially and ignore risks or consequences. While one idea becomes the center of the group’s consensus – other ideas (even those identified as good) are eliminated without careful consideration. Anyone who insists on supporting a different idea than the one the group agreed on is perceived as threatening the group’s existence. The group does not have a compromise in this matter and individuals in the group learn to shut up and avoid disagreeing with group thinking.

And yet, despite the group’s strong control over the individual, it is precisely the individual who has reasons for the group to exist and to have in its hands the immense power it has instead of the person taking responsibility for his life. Will develop an independent approach to heating his unique soft in life – he is happy in the social entity for which he has led to impose the responsibility. The growl of many is not just a coin of language – many people ie “half consolation”, another language, while the individual loses the fathers encouragement and find psychological refuge in the feeling that if the whole group made a mistake to lose together with everyone, and if all is lost then no one in the world Finding the way to self-realization, comes the group entity that allows you to get lost, because not everyone can be wrong …- There is a matter here of “Dismissing responsibility for Hoyt move not only my fault.

The whole eye of the group is a kind of default as to the burden of Hut’s responsibility for the fulfillment of his life. Being an integral part of the group, he no longer needs science and fiction all his life, now his is in the people around him. In the record, he is an X, then the problem of responsibility and the burden and direction of his life. Does not make me in Schocken. Group tyranny also exists in respondent groups. The bourgeoisie also in the oligarchs in the marginal groups – both want in disguise. Admittedly in a mask of liberalism and political-correctness.

And one might think there are more enlightenments there. The one who researched the subject was the late Christopher Lash, one of the most important social thinkers in the United States, he writes about the elites in his book: The Elite Rebellion, which shows that even under the guise of elite American groups lurks clear and even cruel group thinking, thinking

A group that is released as soon as the elite is in danger or under attack: when they encounter resistance they betray the venomous hatred that lies deep not only beneath the smiling face of the good will of the upper middle class. Resistance causes humanitarians to forget the good liberal virtues they claim to espouse. They become nervous and vulnerable, self-righteous and intolerant in the heat of political controversy.

And if a flame fell on the cedars – then group thinking did not miss any of the other groups that withdrew from the rule and rebelled against the consensus, referring to spiritual groups and the new age. And this is puzzling, because the alternative groups are supposed to challenge the tyranny of the majority in the name of the deprived voice, and it is precisely there that an extreme version of conformity and group thinking takes place. The target audience for joining the various sects are the few, those who have not adapted to the group pressure in global society, and it is precisely in the classes in the monasteries at their religious meetings in the ashrams that, ironically, the group pressure is several times greater. The only ones who join cults (even if they are boiled centrally), are usually very dependent and seek the approval of others. That is, above the surface they follow their personal voice and their unique way, but below the surface they seek social approval (and receive it in exchange for unconditional support along the way).

The specific path or traffic to which they join). That is, it is precisely the religious, spiritual, and mystical currents, ways, movements, and sects — which are supposed to challenge the conformity of the herd of the majority — that use the same tactic. And just like personal freedom, they enforce peer pressure several times over.

Chapter 4 – “Them”

Would Hamlet have felt the same magical attraction of suicide if he had not had an audience and lines to say them?

Jeanne Jeanne


As we have seen, somewhere in the course of education and society, the inner voice goes silent – Spencer gives way to the voice of society and culture. At some point in his life, the adolescent abandons listening and tunes to his inner voice, in favor of the conformity of what is expected of him act and be.

Conformity is not a theoretical, abstract, abstract concept – just as the group is not just a collection of individuals. These individuals have a name and an entity, and this entity that they create in unity, is a kind of conscious and omniscient entity, an omnipotent social entity that exerts on the individual power, means of supervision and control, and an effective reward system.

This entity is also called: “they”. “They” said, “They” did, the “They”. Under criticism and observation in the style of the Big Brother, to be okay with this body with this entity. Over the years this feeling is getting diminished and we are getting smaller compared to it. We grow up with their inner inner feeling “there is power to shape and influence our future and our destiny, the” they “are perceived as the formidable home where we have our destiny in hand, and we must satisfy him. Kobi Bar confirmed it we are less and less ourselves, less existent thanks to the world of tonight

Shapeless “otherness,” as Heidegger calls the phenomenon: an ordinary person belongs to others themselves and increases their power. The others, them this the other, or the other is not someone specific, specific, but someone general, without identity, without face, one of many many who are similar; everyone is like everyone else and everyone in fact is not anyone specific.

The other and the phenomenon of otherness are one of the negative by-products of mountain dynamics descended into society. The phenomenon causes our judgment of reality, our considerations and perception of life, to be conducted according to the criterion of “what will they say” and not according to their true value.

Heidegger, who showed the intensity of the curse that “volatility” brought into our lives, makes a separation between the primary world into which man is born, and the world after culture has entered it. A world where alienation and generality take the place of intimacy and individuality. This state of affairs is one of the “services” that a person “gains” as a result of no longer having to take responsibility for his privacy and self, because while he and others are tyrants to each other, they get rid of existential loneliness – the property of every person in the universe – and run anonymously. This reciprocity gives them. ID

One, distances us both from each other as human beings. And this is a rather paradoxical symbiosis: “I thus created a situation in which the other controlled me and froze me in his very presence, and at the same time as you saw as I did, yet there is no connection or intimate intimacy between the two of us.” In such a situation the person is not himself because the other “took from him” his self, yet he finds rather refuge and hiding within those “they” of whom he fears.

Once the individual has found refuge in “them”, in the overall behavior, he develops social abilities: like knowing how to hide, assimilating into the audience, giving up, “knowing how to get along”; Use the social voice so that others will be afraid of you, more than you are afraid of them. Everything personal is immediately made public.

The temple of the individual’s life becomes an abandoned ruin and the main arena for the existence of the individual’s life is the publicity. And when he is at the door of his mothers, in his house, he does not live his life. He hides and takes a break from the revealing publicity. And what does Heidegger say about the public? The relationships formed between human beings living under the auspices of the “they” are relationships between objects, between objects, frozen and public relations.

The individual lives in an entity that others give to him, he does not exist as a self in himself, but as a people as it is perceived through others. Or in Heidegger’s words:

In the practical public environment by the use of public transport and by the use of knowledge services such as the newspaper, each is like the other, the entity of the person himself dissolves completely into a kind of being of the others.

So far the antithesis to say if so the thesis? The thesis is authenticity that is, the basic equation in human life is as follows: authenticity denies morbidity and mortality denies authenticity. Where one of them exists, the other does not exist, and in our society the otherness prevails. If the authentic is personal and private, then the other is general, identical and similar to others. If the authentic is intimate and subjective, consider the objective. Are

Sees himself and the other as an object, an object, an object.

Chapter 5 – The power of the group on the individual

Our “normalcy” and “adaptation” are often nothing more than the departure of the transcendence of the soul, a betrayal of the true potential inherent in us; because many of us are overly successful in buying  a fake I in order to adapt to a fake reality.

R. D. Liang, the divided self


Man has created a society, but the power accumulated by society has become so great that society as a body, instead of having some kind of symbiosis with the individual, or being a tool in his hands – has almost become a closet over him! Writes about it very sharply, r. D. Laing: … all those people who want to control the behavior of large numbers of other people – do it through and based on the experience of those other people. And once people are prevented from tasting a similar way, you can expect them to behave in similar ways to make all people want the same things, hate the same things, feel the same threat – then their behavior is already captive, you bought and you own your consumer audience or your cannon fodder. Then it can already cause the same perception of Negroes as subhuman, or of evil or degenerate whites, and behavior will be carried out accordingly.

This powerful influence of society came in place of his personal life; Instead of man realizing his uniqueness as an individual, instead of letting all this vast range (between his fragile uniqueness and the infinite universe) manifest, he creates Some mediating and sealing factor; Education, education, auxiliary 30, etc., all of which conceal and obscure his true personal ability. For him the reality so that he does not experience the emptiness of the inhuman universe Social masking also prevents the individual from feeling his existential condition as a person, and as security: “You are not alone”, “You belong”. And thus, an embrace of the society around. The social wall of defense conveys to the individual a false sense of intimate intimacy = the individual from feelings of uncertainty, emptiness and the horror of death. Society gives the individual a sense of false certainty; she says: “What we have is fine, none of us have to worry, the laws we have created are certain Teases אo a man who lives in a huge desert; He’s building a house for himself. Heart אhick walls, on the walls many pictures, and both real around.

The dish is hidden from his eyes Deafness. “What is it like?

This is also the great paradox of religion; Pregnant is supposed to bring together the individual business world, God, forces above him – but in practice she brings him mostly together with rigid frameworks and with others who look and act just like him. In the lap of religion the individual gains a structured, safe and predictable world, a world of warm embrace and protective certainty; Every question – answer, almost everything in life has some kind of comment or mitzvah. But aren’t these lighters a substitute for something that lies within the person and needs to come out? And in order for him to come out, does he actually need uncertainty, embarrassment, confusion, and emptiness? Honorable Artist; The artist creates the work through embarrassment, confusion, emptiness. Both the artist and Eddie need some personal medium, through which, what he feels inside will be able to be expressed. Or once deprived of emptiness and uncertainty and surrounded by walls of social, cultural certainty – there is no possibility of self-fulfillment, because it occurs only against the background of the uncertainty of life within an empty universe and the death that awaits at the end.

From an essential point of view, what society is doing is creating a mask between man and the son of emptiness, confusion and terror outside. Most people live in perfection, and are very comfortable with this masking, and have no problem living out of the distance of the perfect and the perfect (but also deceptive). Ignoring the extent of the silent universe outside. And over the years this masking hel For example the chats on the Internet. Although these chats respond to the cry for Anna’s touch, but instead of the person meeting people and exposing his wounded and bleeding soul, he is without “like human beings”, in “like a place” and talks about things that can be the real but

There are many ways of representing the frustrated individual; this is reflected in the attire Zadok and tattoos, legitimacy for groups that were once considered marginal groups, in subversive currents in literature, thought, politics, etc. But do not talk to deceive us; All of these are mostly cosmetics. Because in the end, a large proportion of those who represented the personal voice only externally, and only a few manage to maintain true uniqueness and personal voice.

Most people maintain loyalty to social codes, live their lives through the binoculars of what others say and obey a long line of social imperatives. The average, middle-class citizen loses the wine for himself – and becomes a server of dominant LEDs, whose goal is to create external security. His life will be better trough both the strong of the individual with the group of the mind (and this will be visible to any other group), he manages to avoid being measured with the question “Who am I?” And especially with what I can be! The concept of happiness is directly related to learning in which the person manages to meet a system of normative social expectations, such as: income level, number of friends, successful children in school or profession, travel abroad, etc. However, this system of norms is not the same as the other the sexes, for example for a man – the bad that he would be happy if he had sex with many women. While the woman would be happy if she had one man (successful and strong), who would love her very much and be loyal only to her. Then after living with such a system To a situation where he has no idea what he really wants, what his personal approach to life is and what can be in his life, and he becomes a pale replica of some kind of blurred collective social norm who from the beginning came to prevent through his personal fears – from gaining momentum … Whoever writes softly on the subject of social coercion and the silence of the unique voice is, again, Shlomo Giora Shoham, in his book The “Sociology of the Absurd”, where he quotes the sociologist George Simmel who spoke of life Social is full of high school greetings and claims that most groups suppress the unique characteristics of their members. The stronger the establishment, the more oppressive it is. Dostoevsky has already said that there is no place where the devil likes to dwell more than in a monastery. “Kierkegaard, for example, described religion as” the essence of lack of authenticity. “

It is immersed in the student’s mind, but it is not a knowledge that is assimilated into his personal life (part of the life experience). A trip to the Land of Education is akin to a trip on a safari, where Spawn sheds boys with a tightly sealed waist – from which he overlooks the wild outside, before punching the tiny bourgeois and synthetic ottoman. A person may stand for the sole of the truth, quote it, manipulate it – but not absorb and assimilate it. The modern student does not utter the was but needs it. Collecting it, or in most cases, wearing it (i.e. the degree) on

It seems, therefore, that the greater problem is not the existence of restrictive and restrictive norms. But the fact that most people are not at all aware that while realizing their existence is barren – they are like a miss to a great extent in a stone fire, no cable is more legitimate than the transparent cables, for he who does not know he is bound will never let go either way, overt or covert, it is known but to descend. One of the sickest evils, of the socialist despite the seemingly insane settlement. Also because the seniors of the parking requirements and answer are the things that are done without social approval. We tend to internalize our internal social norms, and so in effect the cultural and the clergy fluid with us our personal and creative freedom. Who made a very significant contribution to the preparation of the person’s behavior in the tapping of the Influence of Normalization The French Jewish scholar Emile Durkheim argued that anyone who wanted to learn the person and understand his behavior wanted to go and rummage first. At the roots. The social influences from which the hereditary Yankelbailen to the personality. And Durkheim sharply criticized the rock niche (an approach that advocates biological or psychological interpretation of human behavior) and turned the zircon into the social structure to social and environmental hours. According to him, the tremendous power of the social structure, over the governing norms, the attitude to which the individual receives his embarrassment and his social status – all of these have a weighty and formative effect on the Aram. “Ran as self-indulgence in man, thereby bypassing his willpower,” says Dakhak on the power of social norms. Any attempt to understand the individual within: Suspicion only in his personal consciousness will lead to failure. Will bring about a more complete understanding of the individual,

Chapter 6: The social establishment and the realization of the potential of the soul

Partial depersonalization of others occurs incessantly in everyday life and is seen as normal, if not truly wished for.

 R. D. Laing.

Some people say behind your back and reflect on your position in society.

Edgar Watson


A. The latent power of social conditioning

We have seen so far that society serves the person’s need for a sense of belonging and mediation, in which he will feel safe. This mediation is based on a system of claims for the existence of social norms. Yet literature and art are full of subversive and skeptical works, and anyone can cool almost anything, and not only that, but the social system has even embraced the subversive writers and thinkers: Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Kafka, Antoine the Saint-Exupery, Nietzsche, Thoreau, Samuel Beckett, Jeanne Jeanne, Rambo, Francis Bacon, Jean Paul Sartre, Hemingway and others.

But although this adoption into society creates a sense of liberalism and openness towards works that deviate from the consensus – it is precisely the very recognition of them that must raise suspicion about the sincerity of their adoption into the consensus. This liberalism is joined by the whole matter of education: the knowledge learned in school and at university, Filed in the student’s mind, but it is not an assimilated knowledge in his personal life (part of the life experience), the trip to the Enlightenment is like a safari trip, where the traveler in a jeep is protected “well sealed – from which he overlooks the wild outside, before returning to the conference Bourgeois and synthetic. A person may face the truth, quote it, admire it – but not absorb and assimilate it. The modern student does not assimilate the knowledge without needing it, collecting it, or in most cases, wearing it (i.e. the degree) on flap betrayed as a jewel or as a rank in the army.

It seems, therefore, that the greater problem is not the existence of restrictive and limiting norms, but the fact that most people are not at all aware that while realizing their social existence – they largely miss their personal realization. Indeed, there are no stronger cables than the transparent cables, for he who does not know that he is bound, will never think of freeing himself from his shackles – for he is sure that he is free to do as he pleases.

But either way, overt or covert, known or unknown, one of the ills of modern society – despite the apparent permissiveness is the dominant existence, even because covert, of the conditions, demands and demands of society from us. Bottom line, few are the things that are done without social approval. We tend to internalize social norms and give up our inner principles, and thus culture and normalization rob us of our personal and creative freedom.

One who made a very significant contribution to understanding human behavior in the context of the influence of social norms on the individual was the French Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim[2]. Durkheim argued that anyone who wants to learn the person and understand his behavior – it is advisable that he first go and delve into the roots of the social influences from which he sucked, instead of hanging on the hereditary or personal tree. Durkheim harshly criticized the reductionist approach (an approach that advocates biological or psychological interpretation of human behavior) and turned the spotlight on social structure and social and environmental influences. According to him, the tremendous power of the social structure, public opinion, the governing norms, the attitude of the individual recipient from his environment and his social status – all of these have tremendous weight and formative influence on man. “… They impose themselves on man, thereby bypassing his willpower,” says Durkheim of the power of social norms. Any attempt to understand the individual from an excavation only in his personal consciousness will lead to failure, according to Durkheim, a search of his behavioral sources in society and in the way it is organized, will lead to a more complete understanding of the individual.

Durkheim supports the approach that was presented here before, that every one of us is under a crushing roller, made od social limitations and demand,(which are usually are hidden and therefore unnoticed). But with it, if we only dare to violate one of this conditionings – immediately we will experience sanctions or stigmas.

One common example is; “I am an optimist” – everyone declares it, as though it is not a collective mantra, that if one would dare say that he is pessimistic- he will be block and get objections.

Into the category limitations and social demand – Durkheim puts in his words the sentence: “Every form of action, fixed or not, that has got the ability to impose on the individual external limitations’’.

In his later works, focusesDurkheim on emphasizing the ability of this limitations to filter in and to become part of the individual’s consciousness. Meaning: After the filtration in – the individual does not see the conditioning or limitation in behavior as external to him, for after it has filtered in, it is something that is already in him and is part of his psychology. And in his own language society’s influence is: “Something beyond us and something in ourselves”.

But the individual is convinced that he is behaving like that and doing this and not that because this is his own will, without external influence…

Durkheim also have shown that people who are strongly connected and integrated within a cohesive group – become protected significantly from frustrations and cruises, which are one’s portion of a human by virtue of him being human and does is exposed to crises and tragedies.

It is his conviction, (which he conveys in his book on suicides[3] that from this reason the percentage of suicides in strong and cohesive societies is significantly low than in degenerating societies. The stronger and more cohesive and with wider consensus – so it supplies to the individual protection from anxieties, and inner and existential conflicts. And the ones who are integrated in society in a more complete way – gets a stronger protection. Social integration is an outcome of the number of interaction that the one is making with others, for example; taking part in religious ceremonies, activities in the work place, functions within the community, going in the evenings to the theater ot to concerts – all of them are increasing the number of social combination that he is creating and so are creating for him a wall of protection and confirmation, which gives him the feeling that he is ok.

The importance of Durkheim as a thinker is mainly to do with a new perspective he offers to the concept of free choice; According to him, society isn’t the exactly the framework which allows the ecology for self-actualization. But it is a sophisticated organized system that sends invisible strings of control to the subconscious of the individual and from there it is moving him like a puppet on a string, a marionette. If the marionette feels free and with freedom of choice, it is because it could not notice the strings that tie her to tough and invisible social norms that move her.

More than the individuals shaping the societies nature, society is shaping the lives of the individuals living in it.

Society is an entity that has got existence and power of its own. Durkheim believed that the motive in religious life is not necessarily the affinity between the individual and God, But the affinity between the individual in a particular religion and the social environment in this religion.

Emil Durkheim also claimed that deviation and crime serve society in that the punishment strengthens the moral identity of the majority.

His claim is supported by the fact that historically the proportions of deviation remain the same, if society really would want to, it could finish crime altogether, it cultivates it from hidden, dark, subconscious social needs.   

B. Everything ok or not

The general approach of a person towards society is as a masterpiece of the human race.

The average person[4] (yes, there is such a thing) is convinced that society is going in the right way, that we are on the way to solve more and more problems in many areas for “there is no doubt that we advanced a lot since the primitive societies”.

But contrary to them are few (and the author – included…) that according to their opinion most, if not all, of the advancement that was reached so far is mainly in the technological field, and from the essential and value standpoint – not only that no advancement was reached, but a deterioration took place: increase of materialism, life becomes empty from meaning, violence is on the rise constantly, and with it the alienation, and the existential absurd.

This messages exist in absurd plays (Prominent absurdist playwrights include French writers Jean Genet and Eugene Ionesco and Irish writer Samuel Beckett), in philosophy (existential and postmodern), the breakdown of classical art (abstract painting), modern literature (every second novel is about the breakdown of family or relationship, Disillusionment, disappointments and heartbreaks).

This works are less popular than essayistic works, and indeed they exist mainly in high levels of creative art and writings, but even there the message is presented in such an obscure way that one doesn’t know if it is an allegory of reality or a fruit of the imagination of the creative artist or writer.

In a way it is the high mission of the creative artist – to put a mirror in front of our real portrait. And it is not nice: over consumption, the overtaking of technology (from cellphones to T.V.), violence and discrimination against the different and the weak, the sensitive and the old. Alienation and political corruption.

The question is: should those reflectors be thanked for the truth in their reflection? Or be treated with suspicion, meaning that they see life and society like that only because something is wrong with them? In other words, those creative different othrtes are not being thanked for conveying the ugly truth, they are either being muffled or stigmatized for daring to accuse the ruling majority.

The psychological establishment is advising to the critical observer to look at what is wrong with him, for a whole society could not be wrong, and so it plants in him guilt feelings for seeing life and people in such a critical way.

But as Emil Durkheim and R. D.[5] Laing were was saying: instead of the different one it is society which that should check itself.

The self-doubts inflicted by representatives of the establishment are neutralizing him from his influential power and so society could continue with its indoctrination without disturbance.

And this critical viewer who sees the truth we should say: ‘’you are ok!”

 C. “You are not ok”

“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


It is being talked of here about a stigma being attached to someone who is not behaving according to accepted norms, a stigma that it is within its power is the ability to wake up in the exceptional, (who sees things different than the rest) feelings of guilt and self-doubt. Just the terms; different, or exceptional – are holding within them a meaning of something out of line, that doesn’t fit. Society is labeling the different in a negative way and causes him to turn against himself – searching what’s wrong with him. And then he must find something and then instead of turning against the establishment we turns against himself.

So works the establishment, and so it is weeding the subversive weeds out of its well-groomed garden. It is no longer going against them externally, like in totalitarian regimes, today the ways to deal with subversive weeds are sophisticated and covert, society passes non-formal messages to all those who do not walk the main  road. And so instead of society having to ‘deal’ with every potential she is bringing the deviants to a state of self-doubt, of from there, the road to self-guilt and self-blockage – is short.

For example, a child that does not integrate socially because of high sensitivity (that does correspond with the rudeness and the aggression around) could become a kind of a scapegoat[6]. But he will grow up with the feeling that something is wrong with him, he will develop fears, low self-esteem, low self-confidence, and the system is saved from another potential critic.

In other words, the secret weapon of a society that doesn’t have external enforcement measureless of it authority as a society, is by planting a feeling of self-doubt and guilt in those who are different and do not fit, this is done secretly by socializing agents (in fact most of the majority are) who are leading the non-integrated into דelf-probing and burrowing, which lead them eventually to the inevitable conclusion that indeed: “I am not ok”[7]. Unfortunately, there aren’t many that will tell the individual that wants to keep his individual thinking for himself not to hesitate and to carve his individuality by going against the stream, that it is possible for him to be convinced the a whole society and a whole culture are operating according to cods that do not go together with the voice of the inner being of the human. And this is because in its priorities – society prefers the collective interest on top of the being of the special and the sensitive.

This sensitive unique individual is frustrated, “for everyone looks so ok, so normal, so what is so wrong only with me”? It is so easy for him to fall into the pit of self-judgment and to think that so many could not be wrong. It is so difficult for the highly sensitive to think good of themselves, but to think badly of yourself is like a collaboration with the dominant social norms that have decided for the individual what is ok and what is not.

It is enough to allow just a little “I am not ok” and like a plague it contaminates the whole body, like when one is fired from work, this can cause a Domino effect, and all our life would be perceived as a series of failures. (Many psychosomatic illnesses could be triggered by: “I am not ok”).

The governing approach in this society is the paternal approach that believes in reward and punishment, and if if you are not ok, meaning that you don’t conform, than you are not ok. The maternal approach is opposite: she says that you are always ok, and even if you are not, even then, you are still ok.

And in order for him to stick to his critical approach against the collective dictatorship (very hidden and non-formal but still very effective) – he needs to understand that only the maternal way, of acceptance, forgiveness, support, empathy and compassion – will allow his self-aggression  to his terrible “I am not ok” – to get out of the picture.

We are over dependent on social conditioning and social expectations: to succeed I school, to get a University Diploma, to have a career a an economic status, to get marred in the right age, to have the right number of children, to watch after their grades at school – and if some of those does not answer the expectations it leads to us asking ourselves: “what is wrong with me”?

This paternal masculine approach of the social establishment says that before you have a life you have to fulfill the social expectations, and only than you can be…

The paternal approach is all the time pushing towards achievements and accomplishments. The maternal-feminine approach accepts the person as he is, it has much support and tolerance, it transmits that you are ok because you exist.

But that it is very difficult for the highly sensitive and those with critical thinking about human society to understand that not only that they are right and ok but they are in fact – victims! In fact, they are (as was mentioned before) scapegoats, in them it is personified and manifest many of the ills of society: depression, neurosis, existential crisis, meaningless existence. The one who recognized the illness of lack of meaning in general habitual life was Victor Frenkel in his book: Man search for meaning”, and joined him: Erich Fromm especially in his book: “The sane society[8]”.

So, it is not a question of sick, neurotic, or unstable individuals within a healthy society, but of individuals who could not integrate because they could become a social mirror. History already taught us that in many cases the majority might be wrong and the few and minority might be carrying the flag of truth.

The problem is that many people accept themselves only if they fulfill a set of conditions and conditionings: to marry at the right age, to bring the right number of children, (and to be responsible for their marks at school), to have a successful career, to be financially stable, and so on, and if you do not fulfill those acceptations your self-esteem might be damaged, which might lead to: am I not ok?

This conditions are coming from the social norms, which are paternal or masculine at base, and this is a mentality and an approach that says that before you have a life you must fulfill social acceptations.

The paternal approach


2. On Exceptions and outstanding

– I’m not on anyone’s team.

Jonathan Holden


The prevailing opinion is that among the members of the organized and institutionalized group there was a partnership – and in contrast among strangers, each to himself, and loneliness and foreignness are the name of the anointing and perhaps things are not as they seem.

The other, by virtue of being single and lonely, is close to himself. Does not need the bow shell that will protect it from the others. The stranger, then, is an open being, which is not only devoid of boundaries, walls and gates closed, but also devoid of corridors. “The other” is having an inner drinking intimacy. This is in contrast to the members of the organized society, based on 2 territorialities, definitions of areas and short dividing lines for the profession, between chin

High to low status, between rich and poor, between men and women, etc. The very definition of a company as a company – sets boundaries and separates people, was it according to the label: it is a programmer, it is a salesman he has an academic degree and the attitude is according to the difference: “one of ours” or not “one of ours”.

On you society, by virtue of its existence candles reign as borders and an intimate violin. Instead of individuals defined by their place in a broad social context there can be no intimacy, but alienation and alienation. And this is pure intimacy, he has no boundaries beyond his control, and therefore he frightens (so to speak) the boundaries of society and the definitions and social violations of stigma, the weapon of alienation does to you the only thing that society, which has ruled Weir I “to me”, the weapon towards me The other amorphial intimacy the whole father does to separate him from us, to define him as one not our own. One that all boundaries apply to me and he stays out.

By one of the most profoundly influential thinkers of our century, The Rebel is a classic essay on revolution. For Albert Camus, the urge to revolt is one of the ”essential dimensions” of human nature, manifested in man’s timeless Promethean struggle against the conditions of his existence, as well as the popular uprisings against established orders throughout history. And yet, with an eye toward the French Revolution and its regicides and deicides, he shows how inevitably the course of revolution leads to tyranny. As old regimes throughout the world collapse, The Rebel resonates as an ardent, eloquent, and supremely rational voice of conscience for our tumultuous times.

[2] David Émile Durkheim (French: [emil dyʁkɛm] or [dyʁkajm];[2] 15 April 1858 – 15 November 1917) was a French sociologist. He formally established the academic discipline of sociology and is commonly cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science, alongside Max Weber and Karl Marx.[3][4]  (Wikipedia).

[3] Suicide: A Study in Sociology (FrenchLe Suicide: Étude de sociologie) is an 1897 book written by French sociologist Émile Durkheim. It was the first methodological study of a social fact in the context of society. It is ostensibly a case study of suicide, a publication unique for its time that provided an example of what the sociological monograph should look like.

According to Durkheim, the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result. He also believes that because of high levels of anomie there are high levels of suicide.[1]

[4] The greatest sin is not becoming evil, or bad, or curl, or harmful or dishonest, or a victim and a loser. But being one thing and one thing only; mediocre and average, this is the common worst. In the following lines from Ibsen’s, “Peer Gynt” Peer is approached by the agent of death called the button dissolver, he can only dissolve buttons (human beings) who did not turn themselves during their lives, into gold or silver buttons (special human beings), he can only melt those who remains average, so maybe, later on in their future life, one of them could be transformed to become silver or gold buttons. And Peer, unfortunately – is average, thus, like most, has to be melted.

[5] True sanity entails in one way or another the dissolution of the normal ego, that false self competently adjusted to our alienated social reality…

R. D. Laing

What we call “normal” is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection, and other forms of destructive actions on experience…It is radically estranged from the structure of being.

R. D. Laing

A child born today in the United Kingdom stands a ten times greater chance of being admitted to a mental hospital than to a university … This can be taken as an indication that we are driving our children mad more effectively than we are genuinely educating them. Perhaps it is our way of educating them that is driving them mad.

R. D. Laing

The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.

R. D. Laing

[6] The scapegoat is the other, who is weak, or highly sensitive, or just a stranger, an outsider, on whom we load our shadow, the ugly self, and this is done by projection.  All this is done with great discretion; turning the other into a victim to of that which the strong cannot live with.

[7] I’m OK – You’re OK is a 1967[1][2][3] self-help book by psychiatrist Thomas Anthony Harris. It is a practical guide to transactional analysis as a method for solving problems in life.

[8] In this study, he asks: “Can a society be sick?” He finds that it can, arguing that Western culture is immersed in a “pathology of normalcy” that affects the mental health of individuals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

The art of finishing

(From the book: The Mysterious Life of Reality) And you can also know how to say goodbye… Gather together everything that will be left behind, everything that is scattered, thrown…
Read more

Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu – chapter 63

Practice non-action.Work without doing.Taste the tasteless.Magnify the small, increase the few.Reward the bitterness with care. See simplicity in the complicated.Achieve greatness in little things. In the universe the difficult things…
Read more