Can you believe we’re already in May! Nearly halfway through 2023. Which, incidentally, is my birthday month. And the 23^rd month since Tsim & Bibi commenced operations at Morning Glen Shopping Centre! Meaning that Tsim & Bibi celebrates its second anniversary in June, just as I celebrate another rotation around the sun this month. And in the spirit of the new seasons upon us, I’m switching up the conversation; going in deeper with the aim of provoking some kind of reset or repositioning in each of us. Because we’re out of time. Literally. The world is evolving at an alarming rate. The language of the world is changing. Behaviours are shifting. Conversations are taking different directions. Technologies and innovations are challenging many sectors. And new patterns are emerging all about. All of which are pushing men into spaces not transcended before. And if we’re not careful, we’ll be overtaken.

Which brings me to the topic for this month: The First Person. Now, we all know what this term refers to. In fact, a study of storytelling in the context of the English Language shows that three persons (or protagonists) exist grammatically. Being The First Person, The Second Person, and The Third Person. And that The First Person refers to the self. “I”. Now, I will not attempt to delve into a deeper study of the English context, except to use this reference to elucidate and emphasise the points I seek to make in the remainder of this blog. In discussing the impact of a focus on the self on society as a whole. That is, what emphasising the individualistic perspective is doing to the broader narrative.

So, let’s get into it. We live in a world where the loudest voices, being the ones that appear to be directing things, are mostly found amongst the collective. That is, within the masses. With the collective voice being the popular voice that represents a sort of unification of the people concerned. Let me unpack this further. There’s a language in the world that seems to suggest that individuals are united when they collectively gather around certain things. And that this alignment makes them one or singular in purpose and focus. For instance, petitions are circulated on various issues, and many are signing up in support of the proposed initiatives. Various interest groups are marching every other day against defined behaviours, and they seem to be agreed on the process and outcome. Board meetings are convened across the globe around the success of agreed corporate strategies with an apparent alignment. Students in various educational spaces are leading interest groups aimed at facilitating important debates surrounding key issues. And churches are filled with men and women who appear to be praying to the same God with the same objective, with a tangible fervour and intensity. I could go on. What we see is a perceived alignment across the masses based on the collective voices that have emerged through the collective thought and behaviours. Yet, I believe, this could not be farther from the truth. Now, follow me keenly.

There’s an inherent deception in this corporate language and voice. Because while it seems to be co-ordinated and unified; in reality, it’s a mask for divisions that are deeply entrenched and growing day-by-day with increasingly devasting consequences. If not for this generation, certainly for the ones to come. And while my intention isn’t to generalise and whitewash all such activities and behaviours, it’s important to take a closer look at what is happening beneath all of these activities.

Take South Africa, by way of example. The concept of ‘Ubuntu’ was coined in this land, and essentially means “I am, because we are”. Symbolic of a sense of humanity towards each other. Embodying elements of unity, equality, inclusion, acceptance and so on. All of what this nation must see in the aftermath of the devastating apartheid era; which separated, discriminated against, and split the people in all kinds of direction. And we commend it. In fact, this was a big part of the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which sought to bring about restitution for all South Africans in the spirit of community. An ‘ubuntu justice’, of sorts. But if we carry out an honest assessment of the progress that has been made in the country since then, we see the language, and even the forms, of unification; yet there remain deep divisions that continues to widen at the root, albeit masked by the activities happening all about.

For instance, racism remains a deep issue in South Africa. In addition, the ills of apartheid continue to be blamed for the systemic corruption South Africa’s struggling to resolve. And I can go on. The educational system still appears to be imbalanced when judged across many factors. Traditional forms of worship and ancestral altars continue to define the nation at its core. Healthcare remains inaccessible for all. And South Africa has one of the highest unemployment rates on the continent, yet it’s amongst the third richest of them. As we speak, South Africa is in an extreme battle for service delivery. So, leading to 1994, South Africans marched and fought their way out of the debilitating apartheid regime, attaining necessary freedoms for all people; as concretised under the Constitution – the founding document for the Republic. Yet in 2023, South Africans continue to march and fight to enjoy those same freedoms, albeit at different levels. So, we must ask the pertinent question: where are we missing it?

I believe that in attaining freedom for the collective, the world has fallen captive to The First Person. Essentially shifting from one extreme to the other. From no recognition of The First Person to an over-recognition of The First Person. Such that the individual voice has begun to carry a weight and have a bearing to the disadvantage of the collective position. Because it’s one thing to ensure that all men are free. But completely another to land up in a situation where, in the exercise of their individual freedoms, men begin to embed a disunity in society that will be hard, if not impossible, to eradicate the more these individual freedoms are emphasised. And this is a hard conversation. Not one we would hold easily. Because we’ve come from so far. The thought of going back is inconceivable.

But surely, a line must be drawn somewhere? Yet the moment we speak of drawing lines, it follows that certain individuals will be subordinated to others. And that feels wrong on the surface. But the more we permit the system to allow individuals to define the boundaries of life for themselves, the more society stretches into spaces that embed more division and disunity amongst all.

Today, we live in a world with every kind of “ism” possible. And the number keeps growing by the day. For instance, Feminism, Racism, Sexism, Atheism, Humanism, Modernism, Naturalism, Equalitarianism, Transsexualism, Expressionism, Narcissism, Postmodernism, Evangelism, Agnosticism, Consumerism, Colonialism, Astigmatism, Transvestism, and Unionism. The list is endless. Everyone has their individual point of view concerning everything, and is exercising their respective freedoms to that end. Everyone believes they’re (or rather, they should be) free enough to express themselves in that manner, irrespective of the consequences on the broader society. Individualism, defined as “the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant”, is the mother of all “isms”. Because of a focus on The First Person, everyone is increasingly self-reliant. And this is all we hear and see. But don’t be deceived. They may march together or gather together or appear to be aligned in one way or another. But they’re not in agreement. It’s about convenience. They may be agreed in relation to that one issue, but the moment you take it off the table, you’re left with many different voices pulling in different directions. And each unwilling to submit to or yield in favour of the others. The First Person rules. And no one is willing to compromise for any voice that goes against it, arguing that this would undermine the very freedoms that our forefathers fought so hard to attain for us.

And you don’t yet think this world is in trouble? The voice of The First Person is only getting louder and becoming more prevalent. And these voices are speaking above each other; it’s hard to make sense of it all!

The Oxford Dictionary defines “Confusion” as “uncertainty about what is happening, intended or required”. Now, I learnt something profound recently. That ‘Babylon’, which means confusion, actually refers to a specific type of confusion when unpacked in its Hebrew rendering. Being a confused noise made by a number of voices. That is, the composite of a voice that is confusing because it has many voices speaking in it. And so, confusion arises from the collection of different voices in the same place; with each voice carrying a distinct meaning. But with so many voices speaking, and without everyone connecting to or understanding what each individual voice is saying, it’s only producing a noise. Because there’s no alignment around the meaning of the individual voices. They’re heard but aren’t understood. And they’re competing against each other.

So, if all we’re left with is noise, how will the individual define a meaningful space for himself? And with everyone pulling and pushing against each other, how can we make meaningful progress as a community? And deal effectively with education, healthcare, spiritual growth, employment, service delivery, and the like critical issues that the world’s facing today? We’ll circle the same space over and over because no one can make sense of and build from that place.

I would argue that society has become captive to the individual freedoms that it fought so hard to secure. And except a distinct voice emerges with the ability of levelling the playing field by defining and enforcing clear boundaries for everyone, the situation will only worsen. The rights of The First Person must be balanced against the common good. Because as long as we’re each defining our own boundaries, then we’re each building our own nations. What am I saying? You can’t fight for Ubuntu when you’re still fighting for yourself. There must be a compromise somewhere. We can speak the great story and paint pretty pictures forever and a day. But without addressing the emphasis that is placed on The First Person, the conversation is useless!

It’s time to re-evaluate the world we’re creating. And to become more considerate in the exercise of our individual rights and freedoms. I am by no means suggesting that we must agree on everything. But we must come to a place where we’re at peace with each other. Simply because of the weight of protecting the collective position. Which will require certain times that we hold our peace when we could speak; and bend and break a little for the common good. If we’re to truly arrive at a place of unity, then we must deliberately carve out a place that embodies a unified position for all. Remembering that unity is not the same as freedom. Freedom is defined as “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants”. And we each have that. But unity is defined as “the state of being united or joined as a whole”. And this is still lacking across the world. We won’t achieve unity unless our language and speech become singular. Where a single voice bearing a single meaning emerges from the collective and is understood and agreed by all. When we start talking to each other and not across each other. If unity is what we’re ultimately after, then we must reposition ourselves for it. Because we’ve lost that story in the quest for individuality.

All hail, The First Person!

Yours in baking,

Chi