Human relations in an impersonal world Diana M. Lozano Part. Human relations succumb today to new ways of interacting due to the mediation of new information technologies. But although these increasingly sophisticated tools contribute to depersonalization, it could be said that they are not just that: “tools” of a power that beyond them has been the true manager of this phenomenon for some time. The world of today is thought of in terms of cost – benefit, that is, that which does not bring a profit or is unprofitable, is not really valued insofar as it does not lead to the obtaining of a profit and therefore, it is discarded.
In fact, we have given concepts such as time a mercantilist value, as the old adage says: time is Money. It is not surprising that we act like this when the media and advertising are responsible for reminding us how to dress, look and live to be in accordance with the demands of today’s society. It is about getting more and more to sustain a device that stands on the satisfaction of consuming. All this is driven by the hegemonic power and prevailing ideology that promote individualism with the false idea of the independence and freedom of people. In reality, when we are conditioned in the way we are, we cannot speak of true freedom, unless we make a conscious and judicious effort to analyze the forces that mobilize public opinion and the will of the “mass”.
The Argentine philosopher José P. Feynman calls this phenomenon “the spectacle of the paved”, (1) according to which we live through what we see in the media; We suffer with the stars of the novels of the moment; We do it in them, we disappoint ourselves and we have fun thanks to them and at the same time we let those who handle those means decide for us.
We have no “life of our own” because there is simply no time. The apparatus of production and the demands of the consumer world do not allow us. Our relationships are inevitably mediated by this individualistic and mercantile conception and that is why, to the extent that an individual can benefit from the relationships he engages in, he will either discard them or simply keep them in distant contact. A plausible example of this is social networks in which people are in contact superficially and their relationship with most of their “friends” is limited to cold and sporadic messages. However, we are facing a great contradiction, which can be noticed when palliatives like Face book, among others, are created and have the undeniable success they have had. The human being has the intrinsic need to relate, to belong, as Eduardo Punster affirms in his Journey to Optimism: “Humans need to belong somewhere, to a social group, to a herd, they do not care; The important thing is to belong. ” But this has been ignored: “For many years, not only have we not dealt with solitude, but we also exalt it” and reminds us: “We knew almost nothing of the brain, we had no idea that it could not be learned without Brain of others. “(Punster, 2011, p.151).
It is then interesting to think of the kind of relationships in which personal contact is virtually excluded and, as the researcher of computer science and electronics at the University of Southampton, Kieran O ‘Hare: “Communication is done with technological representations of ourselves.” The question in the face of such a statement is: yes, when communicating, we are virtually “technological representations”, can we say that we really relate when we appeal to such means to do so? And if we add to this the fact that most of us understand relationships in terms of the benefit they can bring us, as Erich Fromm points out: “Modern man has become an article; It experiences its vital energy as an investment in which it must obtain the maximum benefit, taking into account its position and the situation in the personality market. “(Fromm, The Art of Loving, p. We could then say that although relations will continue to exist, their nature and the essence of them will have changed markedly, starting from the fact that they are not based on the idea that they are an end in themselves, but a means at the service of the system prevailing. Changing the perception that we have formed of human relationships seems a challenge that is beyond our reach. We are too self-absorbed and, following William Opine.”