Shallow Uniqueness and False Diversity

by Andrej Sekulović

Andrej Sekulović critiques the modern liberal concepts of “uniqueness” and “diversity” as superficial and commodified, suppressing genuine individuality, traditional roots, and ethnocultural identity in favour of a deracinated, homogenised consumer mass.

Some time ago, I saw a street advertisement for a chain store which showed an assembly of ethnically diverse girls, accompanied by the hashtag #CompletelyUnique. This innocent little ad I noticed on the street on a cold Sunday morning made me think. It seems that the most endorsed “values” in liberal consumer societies are uniqueness and sameness or diversity and equality. We are all unique as individuals, yet we all belong to humankind. But how should we manifest this individual uniqueness? Does society, which claims to value uniqueness, encourage us to be the best versions of ourselves and thus to show our individual talents? Not really, at least not anymore. Such phrases as the mentioned hashtag are only empty words that may sound attractive to potential customers. They are void of any meaning but reflect the spirit of our age. We cannot blame the company because it seeks to attract as many customers as possible. But such empty phrases are heard not only in the domain of advertisement but also in the realm of politics and the public sphere in general.

Today, “uniqueness” is a word similar to “diversity”. It has become a part of the liberal mantra. But there is a catch. When we hear politicians or the media praising diversity, they only mean diversity of shapes and sizes, not diversity of thought. The latter form of diversity is most unwelcome and is a threat to “our democracy”. We should all look different but think and act the same. This is, of course, not possible since diverse people from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds with diverse genes will not act the same. Nature does not care about the liberal trends. But that does not stop the liberal grinding machine that, as Nietzsche noted, wants to level mountains and valleys in the name of morality. The catchphrase of diversity is used to pave the way for a society of rootless consumers of all shapes and colours, devoid of ethnocultural identities. Thus, modern diversity destroys the real diversity of humanity. It would seem that such terms as “uniqueness” or “originality” are being used in a similar manner. The meaning of diversity is perverted to subvert the natural traits of race and gender. Likewise, the modern concept of uniqueness is used to neutralise the threat of people using their brains, as that may lead them to some conclusions that may not be good for the liberal order, which is already in crisis.

To return to Nietzsche, people in our age can be seen mostly as herd animals, masses of sheep, but there are also wolves who make their own rules. Thoughts that dare to step outside of the accepted norms may evolve into dangerous ideas. Uncomfortable truths can be revealed by individuals who will not blindly follow the shepherds. They may arrive at conclusions that would be unpleasant for the rulers, while they are searching for some semblance of originality in the sea of sameness. They may stumble upon ideas that go against the grain and start to think for themselves, uncovering facts that will lead them to the path of rebellion. Thus, people should think that they are unique as individuals, but only in ways that are not detrimental to the current system. Of course, the ad that made me ponder such questions is not a part of some deep conspiracy. Nonetheless, it reflects wider trends, and while those trends are not likely to be a part of some hidden conspiracy that was conjured up by dark figures in dark rooms behind locked doors, they are part of an agenda that is being imposed on us. This is not being done only for financial gains, although that may be the chief goal of the ad that disturbed my stream of thoughts. Herd animals or not, people, especially Europeans, do tend to assert their individuality, which gives them a feeling of autonomy and some form of “uniqueness”. Everyone sees themselves as persons, not as mere cogs in the wheels or as just another number. We may look upon the crowds in the shopping malls and be horrified by the prevailing consumer herd mentality, but the people who form the crowds do not see themselves in that way. Therein lies the deception of liberal “uniqueness” and “originality”.

Because people want to assert their individual identity, they are guided to do so in ways that are both profitable for big corporations and unproblematic for the powers that be. So, what is this uniqueness that has become such a virtue today? How are people encouraged to be unique? They are not really encouraged to be creative or to strive toward higher ideals. They are not being encouraged to express their uniqueness by overcoming their weaknesses through discipline and hard work, except maybe in some commercials for energy drinks or sports equipment. They are being told that they are unique, not so much because of their diverse talents or unexplored abilities, but because of their individual needs, wants and wishes. Liberal uniqueness is the uniqueness of desires, not the uniqueness of potential. This attitude has the effect of even some mental illnesses being celebrated as examples of individual uniqueness. All kinds of perversions and fetishes are being presented only as different examples of originality. Be that as it may, modern uniqueness is only one aspect of false individuality that is being promoted today. Similarly to modern diversity, this individuality is manifested in one’s appearance, not in one’s thoughts. It is also being manifested in different tastes for brands and products. Thus, everyone thinks that they are different and original, while everyone is just different shades of the same rootless consumer archetype. The liberal society is a society united by false diversity and shallow uniqueness.

It should also be pointed out that while unique individual identities are praised, there is nothing between them and the general belonging to humanity. The next level from the individual is humankind. No intermediate racial or ethnic identities can be found in between, at least not for straight white folks. We are all individuals with a wide array of different preferences, be it sexual partners, food or clothing, and we are all human beings. Therefore, the uniqueness of the individual goes hand in hand with cosmopolitan universalism. We are all different and we are all the same. In this way, the racial and ethnocultural foundations of an individual are being subverted from below and from above. The things that really do shape our personalities, and even affect our individual tastes and choices, are being suppressed and ignored for the sake of the liberal agenda of a unified humanity and sameness. We may all be unique individuals but our individuality grows out of the soil of our ethnocultural heritage. We differ from our compatriots just like boughs of a tree differ from each other but all grow from the same trunk and, most importantly, share the same deep roots in the ground.

Last but not least, is originality or uniqueness in itself always a virtue? We can agree that we should think and act for ourselves, and not just blindly believe what we are being told or simply copy and emulate the behaviours of others. We should also strive to realise our potential, be creative and try to be the best versions of ourselves. But even when we use our minds and try to make our own assessments, we need reference points. We should be able to recognise the good or the right reference points and to learn from the past and the great minds of our civilisation. We should recognise our uniqueness as well as our roots and inherited traits. Therefore, from an identitarian point of view, originality and innovation should be inspired by older traditions and should aim to be both futurist and archaic in the spirit of Guillaume Faye. Most importantly, all kinds of original thoughts or new approaches in different fields should reflect one’s ethnocultural characteristics and core values that have stood the test of time. Originality is therefore a tool of one’s creativity through which one can satiate one’s individual aspirations and give something to one’s folk community at the same time.

The progressives, on the other hand, see their shallow forms of originality and uniqueness as goals in themselves. This can be seen in the grotesque works of modern art, in the cases of extreme body modifications or in the liberal craze of inventing new genders. Everything that is supposedly original is good in itself. Tradition and the past are to be shunned instead of built upon. Originality, innovations and change are seen as chief liberal progressive virtues, and social change is evidently always something good. If change is not to their liking, as in the case of conservative forces winning the elections, then it is not really a “change” but a step back into a darker past. Progressives do not realise that every house needs foundations and that every tree has roots. They want to tear down the foundations and sever the roots in the name of progress, change and even so-called “originality”.

Therefore, originality and uniqueness are good when they grow out of the rich repository of our culture and traditions that should serve us as a compass when we are navigating the stormy seas of modern society in search of ourselves. We can embrace even new original innovations or ideas that are products of creative minds and are rooted in the creative character of the European soul and imagination, even if, at first glance, they seem to depart from the existing traditions. But we should reject the empty, shallow and often gruesome manifestations of supposed originality and uniqueness, which only serve to distort the understanding of our biocultural identity and the natural healthy perception of aesthetics and right or wrong that still dwells deep within our souls. Do not let those with corrupted hearts and sick minds prevail over that which is fair, healthy, true and noble in this world.