Today the authors of the Daily Stoic tell us that "less is more". They talk of standing on your own, not overusing difficult language, or trying to impress others.
I agree with the authors that the best way for simple living is to connect with your own wishes, act accordingly, and surround yourself with those who truly fit you. Historically, generally, and sociologically, I don't think it's as simple.
It's a funny paradox, going against the herd. Standing on your own must mean subverting your social needs by putting yourself first. However, as I write, I can't help but think about how everyone's definition of "herd" is quite different.
Historically, humans are members who belong to a herd and its social rules. Its codes. When we think of herds, we think back to when they were small. Then they grew. Eventually they became herds of hundreds, once agriculture took shape. Towns, communities, and societies grew. When we get to societies, the human herd is so big, it could not be possible that everyone would follow the same codes. There must be small sects of groups that begin to form their own rules. Sub-code. So, at what point did the herd - the community which's code we all followed - become the society - the community which we decide to branch off from and from which, form our own kind of sub-code?
This would be the big debate. And I think this is where opinions of social rules currently differ.
Flash forward to today, where we not only have societies, but countries, nations, online communities, sports leagues, math teams, trivia groups, what have you. We have herds built around any and all interests. The choices (the number of herds) are vast.
So, when we think back to the idea that one must follow their instinct by being social and following the herd, do we think this is really plausible anymore? Can you really follow all these herds? Or is it playing out in different contexts?
Is it possible that the natural instinct to concede to our sociality is constantly changing based on our present moment? One wakes up in the morning alone - part of their own herd. They go to work - part of another herd. They head to happy hour with select coworkers - another herd. They join their bowling league for a game - new herd. Then they head to their hometown for dinner with the family - one more herd. Here we have examples of five different herds in one day. Is the person waking up in the morning acting exactly the same in each herd, or are they molding to their social context (to each herd)?
What does science tell us? (I don't actually know, yet, but if you do, let me know.)
This is a study which would be far more fascinating. How much does our anthropology and historical sociology play a role in current affairs? Has the constantly changing herd added to the anxiety-ridden society? When is it too much or too little?
There are days I come home and want to sit on the couch and watch TV with my brother in the chair next to me. I am convinced this is what I will do all night. Then, and hour later, I get a sense that I want to be social, so I reach out to friends to go out for the night. Wasn't I so sure I wanted to stick with my own herd for the night? Is it the potential for opportunity that instigates our brain's lust for socialness? Is it restlessness born out of current society's evermoving world? Is it impatience or lack of self-discipline? Or am I simply a creature acting on historical instincts for social pleasure?
My instinct is to say it's a mix of everything. Nothing can be one thing, especially when we're thinking anthropologically. One likely begins to find a sense of who they are and the internal code they follow, slowly finds others who follow a similar code with somewhat differing interests (so they don't get bored), and continues to iterate their social lifestyle until they feel a sense of security and self.
These are the questions that plague me. I wonder if they plague you, too.