The modern age offers us an unprecedented variety of opportunities for self-expression and personal development. It gives us the chance to shape a life that is entirely self-determined and free. Anyone can achieve anything; anyone can do anything. Modernity replaced feudal society and broke with the tradition that usually predetermined everyone’s life from birth. In modernity, we are free – this is the freedom we want. So the promise goes. However, this promise is crumbling in today’s world. The gap between what was promised and the reality we see today has become too wide. Whether political crises, social and ecological exploitation, a silencing of the world, rising rates of depression and burnout – particularly in European and Neo-European nations – or a persistent sense of stagnation, all these symptoms are side effects of a development that we still regard as important, and in some cases as a matter of course. Yet the development towards a modern society as we know it today neither brings about the genuine freedom it is often romanticised as, nor does it help the individual to establish a direction or lead a genuinely fulfilled life. For whilst the Enlightenment led to modernity, the attainment of ‘freedom from something’ does not entail a specification of ‘freedom for something’ (Simmel, 1977).
In this analysis, we focus on a very specific aspect of the pressures that modernity exerts on our lives. Whilst I have previously highlighted connections between individuality and coercion in an earlier article – with a more economic focus – in this analysis, we examine the common concept of the Fear of Missing Out (hereinafter: FOMO). This term can be used in various contexts, such as in relation to investment options on the capital market or within pop culture, but it always stems from the same root: the agony of choice faced with a seemingly endless array of options for the ‘correct’ way of life. To shed more light on this, we first turn our attention to the distinction between subject and object, the individualisation that heralded the modern era. We then analyse the resulting fundamental social conditions in order to ultimately establish an understanding of the framework conditions for opportunities for individual self-realisation.
The Process of Rationalisation – The Distinction between Subject and Object
For most of the time that people have organised themselves into structured societies, they have done so in a traditionalist manner. By this, we mean forms of society in which life was, to a significant degree, predetermined. The caste system in India, the power structures in ancient Egypt, bureaucratic China during the imperial era or the feudal societies of medieval Europe; what all these forms of society have in common is that the opportunities to shape one’s own life were strongly determined by the rank, class or social status into which the individual was born. Of course, there are societies that did not develop within these rigid structures; however, firstly, this is not the core that was to lead to the Age of Enlightenment in Western Europe at the end of the 17th century, and secondly, the reduced rigidity is attributable less to liberal ideas than to a different socio-genetic development of these societies (e.g. the social structures of nomadic and equestrian tribes). Whilst it is of less significance for the ongoing analysis why the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment emerged – there is sufficient argumentation for both a materialistically dominant and a cognitively dominant perspective – the focus must be on the concrete distinction between the subject and its environment.
Modernity and individualism go hand in hand; they are not synonyms, but they are mutually dependent. In pre-modern societies, as described above, the individual exists within a strictly defined framework of life. A framework always implies a boundary, but at the same time, it also provides orientation. To emphasise this, in the words of the German sociologist Georg Simmel, the pre-modern individual, unlike the modern individual, is not a boundary-crosser. The framework is regarded as something predetermined, not something that can be changed. This is firmly rooted in the spirituality of medieval Western Europe. Religion is the anchor point, Christian asceticism the goal of life. In this picture, man has a goal, a telos, which is the perfect observance of the divine commandments. Deviating from this is not possible, as he regards the framework as perfect, seeing himself as a created being bound to this perfection. As Max Weber recognised, this world view began to change with the Reformation and culminated in the early Enlightenment with the dualism of René Descartes. Fittingly, traditionalism can be illustrated by Plato’s cave: man is confined in his movements, yet does not realise this, as he does not question the boundaries due to a continuous (predetermined) image, but instead submits to this fate.
The first philosopher to employ a clear distinction was René Descartes, who, with his ‘cogito ergo sum’, laid the foundation for the ongoing process of rationalisation and individualisation – and, consequently, for modernity. His dualism between thinking substance and extended substance signals the start of the disenchantment of the world, the rationalisation that leads the individual to question their established framework ever more deeply. On the materialist side, Weber sees in the Reformation the productivist conditions for such a philosophical stance: due to capitalist social relations, Christian asceticism transforms into an immanent asceticism. Still under the guise of (now Protestant) faith, immanent asceticism demands that one live and lead a life in the world, whilst refraining from its pleasures. The telos shifts from a mythical interpretation to a real-world interpretation; the telos is usually fulfilled through the discovery of a vocation. The culmination develops with Kant, as he reinterprets the now-established distinction between subject and object: the subject is no longer a passive recipient, but structures the world of objects through the forms of intuition and the categories of understanding. This gives rise to constructivism, which regards the subject as autonomous and capable of action, and makes them the arbiter of their own knowledge and morality.
The subject of modernity sees itself as cut off from its environment, not only because of philosophical insights, but also due to social conditions. In order to achieve its own telos, that is, to give meaning to its life, modern man is intent, indeed almost destined, to understand, control and dominate his environment, as he must use it as a resource. Since this fate affects every individual in a modern society, meaning that they compete with one another for the enrichment of resources, it is not only the framework of life that changes, but also the social relations between people that undergo a massive transformation.
Social Conditions
This distinction between subject and object, radicalised by the Enlightenment, together with the disappearance of traditional frameworks, grants the modern individual a freedom that is historically unprecedented. However, as Georg Simmel demonstrates, this historical freedom dialectically transforms into a profound, structural isolation. With the disappearance of traditional frameworks, the subject loses its collective embeddedness; it is thrown back upon itself. This fundamental isolation compels the individual to generate meaning and orientation entirely on their own. The freedom thus gained transforms into a compulsion to give life meaning, since stagnation would be tantamount to philosophical suicide.
As mentioned at the outset, Simmel views modern man as a being defined by boundaries. On the one hand, modern man too has (social) boundaries (above and below us, to our left and right, to a greater or lesser extent) which provide orientation; on the other hand, he is consequently always a boundary in himself. However, humans are not merely beings of boundaries, but also boundary-shifters; the boundaries serve as a guide to constantly improving one’s own life, entirely in the spirit of telos. In this picture, society is a stage and an arena in which people can develop their individual personalities through constant interaction. This continuous shifting of boundaries within the social arena, however, is not without consequences for the subject’s environment. In attempting to constantly improve their lives and develop their personalities, modern humans ceaselessly produce new ideas, technologies, products and lifestyles. They objectify themselves within their environment.
It is precisely here that Simmel builds the bridge to his theory of culture: the sum of all these human creations forms what is known as objective culture. The paradox now lies in the fact that this culture, created by the subject, develops a dynamic life of its own. It is growing so rapidly and inexorably as a result of the advancing social division of labour that the individual, isolated subject is overwhelmed by this increase. From the emancipatory act of pushing boundaries thus arises what Simmel describes as the tragedy of culture: an overwhelming abundance of cultural options which the already isolated subject can no longer process, but which instead crushes them. Amidst the diversity of styles, a universally binding style has been lost. In order not to be crushed by this abundance of options and stimuli, the individual responds with a psychological defence mechanism: smugness. The individual becomes numb and encounters the world with a certain indifference and detachment. Blathering is thus the isolated subject’s attempt to draw a protective barrier between themselves and the overwhelming environment. Through the pluralisation of styles, Simmel explains a deep longing to give things a new significance, a profound meaning that makes one’s own blasé attitude more bearable. To put it in his own words, the individual desires “a structure with its own centre, from which all elements of one’s being, and actions derive a unified, interrelated meaning”.
Like other classical sociologists, Simmel also criticises the relations of production in modern (capitalist) societies. As described above, these had already played a significant sociogenetic role in the development of social and philosophical dynamics during the Enlightenment. According to Marx (1844), Durkheim (1893), Simmel (1900) and Weber (1904), create, on a material level, a steadily growing inequality within class societies by establishing capital accumulation as an absolute end in itself. Thus, these relations of production inevitably reduce the human subject to a mere cog in the machinery of a rationalised economy. The autonomy of the individual, once fought for by the Enlightenment thinkers, is paradoxically materialised under capitalism and turned against the subject itself: the object, be it in the form of capital, commodities or bureaucratic structures, gains an insurmountable dominance over the subject. Human beings are reified in the production process; they no longer control the economy, but are instead controlled by economic constraints. This structural alienation and the market’s relentless logic of exploitation deepen the social isolation of the individual and force the already disoriented subject into that permanent mode of competition and optimisation which so fundamentally shapes the arena of modernity. On a psychological level, Simmel therefore correctly concludes that the longings for individualisation and self-realisation described above can only be achieved on a lasting basis if a society consists entirely of individuals who are equally strong and enjoy exactly the same advantages, both internally and externally. Otherwise, individual differences lead to social inequality and, ultimately, to the oppression of the weak by the strong.
FOMO – Why do we feel it?
This discrepancy between an elite minority and the social majority, both in material terms and in terms of opportunities for individual self-fulfilment, gives rise to what we now recognise as the phenomenon of FOMO. If the individual seeks significance in their complacency, they must, as the centre of their own morality and values, attempt to realise their life plans in a society driven by competition. Successful individualisation thus remains the preserve of a small ‘performance-art’ aristocracy which, in modern society, possesses the necessary resources to realise its full potential.
Simmel describes this more tangibly when he posits that modern man submits to his own individual law in order to ensure the safety of his spiritual salvation. He must shape his life into an ethical Gesamtkunstwerk in order to escape the objective cultural crisis described above. Given the multitude of possibilities and the resulting lack of direction, the individual is reliant on his own ability to extricate himself from this precarious situation. However, the majority of society finds that it must constantly re-evaluate its lifestyle choices in the face of a rapidly changing landscape of consumer and cultural offerings. This is precisely where the psychological root of FOMO lies: the subject, who is actually blasé and inwardly numb, desperately chases after every new impulse in the constant stream of trends in order to overcome their own isolation and emotional numbness, driven by the fear that life is passing them by, whilst paradoxically attempting to protect themselves from precisely this by setting boundaries. To put it in Simmel’s words: “The lack of anything definitive at the centre of the soul drives one to seek momentary satisfaction, a sham marriage with life, in ever-new stimuli, external activities and fleeting concentrations” (Simmel, 1900/1977).
From a sociological perspective, this helps to explain why we experience FOMO and what this reveals about the direction our lives are currently taking. The fear of missing out on styles, opportunities and activities stems, according to the logical conclusion of this analysis, from a profound sense of disorientation regarding one’s own self-fulfilment. At the beginning of the 20th century, the sheer variety of cultural offerings to which we are exposed today, particularly through social media, was scarcely imaginable to Simmel. The attempt to satisfy our jadedness in the short term, the desperate longing for vitality, no longer manifests itself in late modernity merely in the constant reorientation of one’s own life, but increasingly takes refuge in the excessive consumption of psychologically stimulating offerings: social media, pornography or drugs act as temporary anaesthetics for an overwhelmed mind. To escape this relentless spiral of sensory overload, isolation and digital alienation, a fundamentally new normative orientation of the modern subject is therefore required: away from an externalised pursuit of infinite options, towards a conscious and structurally supported development of individual potential.
Final Thoughts
In summary, the phenomenon of FOMO can be diagnosed as a classic symptom of the dysfunctional conditions of modernity. Freedom from rigid social structures is indispensable for human development; however, freedom alone does not constitute a normative reorientation. Rather, it is a condition, a foundation upon which further efforts must be built. The transition to the next stage of society, postmodern society, is visualised in a wide variety of ways by a diverse range of thinkers. However, these must always address the most profound problems of modernity. A common denominator, one of these most fundamental problems, is a lack of normative direction; to use Simmel’s phrase, “the individual law”, which in the current form of society is reserved only for the strongest individuals. The approach we pursue at Essydo is very similar. However, the diagnosis that the majority of society is structurally unable to develop an individual personality, unable to realise their full potential, is only the first step. With Devletism, a postmodern form of society is developing, a normative principle through which structural necessities are brought into harmony with a normative reorientation.
