I recently came across an interesting Instagram account by the name of “Hub’s Life,” which details in a series of short vlogs the life of a man (who I can only assume is named “Hub”) and his “normal” life. The point of his account is to take a stand against pervasive myths about, well, living, that have only metastasized through social media.
His Instagram bio reads “Normalize the Norm,” expressing his dissent against social media influencers and mysterious computer algorithms that fill us to the brim with unrealistic expectations about how one ought to live. Throughout his videos, Hub showcases his normal life as an average member of the American middle class. He owns a home in the suburbs, works in a cubicle, has a wife, a dog named Benny, and overall lives (or appears to live) a relatively unremarkable, normal life.
And yet, in a world where pernicious social media influencers and algorithms seem to have convinced many that one must “escape the Matrix” by embracing hustle culture and “grind nonstop,” his life seems anything but normal. But for most average, middle class Americans, this kind of lifestyle is normal, and the barrage of angry Instagram comments condemning Hub for sharing his life only further illustrates the illusion perpetuated by prolonged social media exposure.
Now, in relating this back to the troubled field of politics, it appears as though I’ve already written about (in passing, at least) the growing problem of a bohemian aestheticism branding itself as a winning alternative in the many “culture wars” that are fought day-in and day-out in right-wing social media circles. Bohemians come in many different shapes, sizes, and flavors, but among the most popular of them seem to be the “Alpha male” Andrew Tate types who believe (or at least appear to believe — many of them most likely know they are peddling nonsense, but the grift is simply too irresistible for them to stop) that the sum of life is nothing more than a struggle for power between the self and the all-encompassing Matrix that desires your economic enslavement through traditional middle class conventions (like working a 9-to-5, for example).
For the purpose of this essay, I’ll focus on this type of bohemian since it is likely the most applicable to Hub’s point of view. In general though, it should be known that I am defining “bohemian” here as someone who conducts himself solely for the sake of a desirable aesthetic. The aesthetic often has no real grounding in reality and often reflects elements of a period that is simply lost to the sands of time. A bohemian (mainly in right-wing circles), the way I have come to see it, is usually someone who conflates a healthy reverence for the past with hollow, modern aesthetic adaptations of that time period. It is the mindless desire expressed by “trad” conservatives on Twitter to “RETVRN.” Return to what, exactly? The 17-year-olds operating these accounts never seem to give an answer beyond the abstract.
The near-ideological commitment to the “hustle” to “escape the Matrix” is ironic because in reality you do not escape anything. If social media has normalized the idea that one must “hustle” and “grind” nonstop to be successful, then that of course points to the “hustle” as a predominating ethos. This ethos is especially powerful because it appeals to the inner narcissist in all of us—the desire to be novel and remarkable, to rise above all the other plebeians who inundate themselves with the mundanity of Normality™. If anything, this “matrix,” or the Cathedral (you could even simply refer to it as “Fashionable Opinions”), is responsible for somewhat normalizing this ethos.
This is especially ironic for gauche right-wingers who champion this ethos, since it is merely the logical conclusion of the radical individualism and consumerism regularly touted and upheld by modern liberalism. It is liberalism to the extreme. Advocates of Hustle culture also seem to be characterized by a sort of abject cynicism concerning the declining socio economic prospects for most middle class Americans, particularly for young men. There is real merit in this cynicism, particularly when Hustlers point to the decline of traditional families and communities, as well as the lack of economic and cultural incentives that are needed to maintain and grow them. These are real problems that need to be addressed.
And yet, the hustlers, in response to this very real decline, merely propose more of the same—radical individualism and consumerism. Their goal is to “escape the Matrix” by reinforcing the predominant cultural ethos that has widely contributed to middle class America’s social and cultural decay. The hustlers haven’t escaped anything, and no progress in reversing this civilizational decadence is made.
This approach is nevertheless popular among many, particularly among young men who (perhaps rightfully) feel disenfranchised. The desire to feel “seen” in an age of decay, to make something of oneself, and to rise above the rest of the commoners can also be a valid desire, but can often veer toward unhinged narcissism if taken to the extreme. Because of this, it has become quite evident that the hustlers have not properly grappled with the reality that most people are, in fact, unremarkable, and will most likely live out their entire lives without being anything more. To be remarkable in any significant capacity is to naturally imply that most people are not. Otherwise, there would be no point in being remarkable, because if everyone was so, then you would most likely be unremarkable all over again.
Most people are simply average, and that is okay. The hustlers (particularly the gauche right-wing ones) fail to make an adequate case to the public because it is condescending to average people who live average lives governed by longstanding cultural norms. It is an unhinged war on normality, a right-wing variation of radical individualism and consumerism, and therefore has no real philosophical basis.