The quintessence of Togetherness

One of my dear friends asked me to pen down my thoughts on togetherness. I really don’t understand the concept of this word. It is an abstract notion which can only be symbolised through gestures such as holding hands together, eating dinner together, having a drink together and so forth. So I was really struggling to find true value of this word, especially in this age and time when the world has started shrinking from larger open communities into nuclear families.

Why do people crave about togetherness if it is such a simple gesture? Why id our great leaders of past quote togetherness thousands of time?

Having meditated over the thought for few hours, I went back to my social network browsing, and just while I was accepting some new connections, I realized the concept of togetherness. Mankind has made tremendous progress over centuries, but the emotions and feelings that human being is born with, still stays the same. We may not be living together with our extended families but we still push ourselves to know our family tree, we still find ways to get in touch with our high-school friends and we still try to find new people who may be our soul mates. The success of social networking sites is a clear validation that people want to stay connected with one another and it is this desire, though in digital form, that brings them together. We may have changed the form of gestures of hand holding to digital likes, but the basic premise of togetherness remains the same. It is still an antidote to loneliness.

The foundation for togetherness is based on commitment, which for some, means end of freedom. In pre-industrial era, families were tied together with common social obligations but in the modern world, families have moved apart due to reasons such as better prospects in other cities/countries, need to get away from traditional routines, need for privacy, becoming independent etc. Sometimes people think that living together means end of freedom to choose what constitutes their personal happiness and rights, that they might be forced to devote their life for the collective happiness of the house hold. This is obviously not true and relationship based on such foundation is weak at best.

The way relationships work may have changed but the essence of it remains the same. People still fall in love, people still crave for intimate partners and people still wish to be blessed with parenthood. The number of divorces may have increased but so has the number of marriages, including the second and third marriage, because at the end of the day, people still believe in “happily ever after” stories and people still wish to be with someone, though the gesture of love may be through SMS, Emails or WhatsApp. People still carry family names, accentuating the association of an individual to a larger group called “family”.

Ideas are born out of an individual’s mind but ideas are brought to life by a group of people. The very origin of man-kind is conceived by bringing two souls together. No natural wonder on this planet was built by an individual, no battle won by an individual.

Every man is supposed to walk down the path on his own, but having someone walk the path with him can provide strength, happiness and determination. Togetherness provides the courage to carry on your personal legend, as penned in the beautiful song “Stand by Me” by Ben King.

why are people envious of the rich?

I read an article recently in FT that suggested poor people are more generous than rich when it comes to charity. A behavioral study done by University of Berkeley also concluded that lower class give more of their resources away, whereas upper-class tend to preserve and grow their wealth.

It makes me ponder if we take every opportunity out there to stab the rich. After all, one can crunch data in many different ways to define human nature and rising inequality in the society. It can as easily be shown that the richest are contributing most to the tax, which provides critical support to the society. We have seen multiple discussions on higher taxes on the rich instead of giving them a choice to spend their hard-earned money as they please and support the economy.

There are many better ways of forcing the rich to contribute to the society. Promoting capitalism that can create jobs is a much better way to reduce social inequality. As someone rightly said “Capitalism is the worst form of society, except for all the others that have been tried”

Many rich people have worked their way up with sheer perseverance, hard work and risk taking ability. Protecting ones future with financial security is basis of survival ship and there is nothing wrong for the upper class or for that matter anyone, to act in their self-interest. The world has already witnessed that governments, including that of developed nations, are incapable of securing the future or providing any social benefits to its taxpayers, so naturally saving and preserving wealth and future is crucial.

Have we forgotten all about Objectivism (as defined by Ayn Rand) that individuals hold free will, are autonomous and independent; by using reason, they determine their own beliefs and values and thus create their own life? Society as a whole would be a much better place to live if we don’t force altruism on every individual.

Is the society moving towards altruism as the new fashion statement? Do we need to define the moral worth of an individual by his values of egalitarianism?

I certainly agree that the some affluent people have exerted more influence on the government to define policies for their self-interest. Instead of hating the rich, the society should lobby to select the right leadership and government that can create environment conducive to equal and fair opportunity for all. But the political dreams of our so-called leaders rely heavily on the donations from the rich.

Once again, I might be perceived as a seriously empathy-deficit person but I do believe that the core problem in today’s world is government structures and leadership rather than capitalism.