The controversial ratification of the Minerba Law revision, the Omnibus Law on Job Creation, the Criminal Code Bill, disclosure of various criminal cases, and spread of social irregularities (committed by those who are materially affluent) were so horrible. Those indicated the outbreak of “affluenza”, a social disease that arises due to the overflow of property and physical pleasures, but soulless. I borrow this word from the title of John De Graaf’s book, Affluenza (2002). Those affected by affluenza define their souls by possessing a system of things and animate their souls with inanimate objects.
Although generally suffered by the rich, affluenza can attack anyone who translates themselves through the objects they wear and the status they carry. This virus breeds due to a lifestyle that is only busy meeting physical needs. Meanwhile, claims to strengthen identity, character, or things related to the maturation of mental potential are only pro forma, limited to bodily rites with no meaning.
Affluenza will thrive in a society that is hit by madness to possess. When it peaks, this virus will blind the sufferer’s eyes. People with affluenza will hit anything that prevents them from having something, deceive the law as a justification for wrong actions, even sacrifice people to control something they love (using people, loving things). This is the excess of a lifestyle that does not know enough words, which wraps the beauty of the body with falsehood, and exchanges honesty with pretense.
Political power “as if”
The strengthening of the lust for possessions makes people more consumptive and only causes prolonged dissatisfaction, anxiety, and even deep despair. A wasteful person is like an emperor who likes to build a magnificent fortress but is lazy to prepare a fighting army that dares to fight. They only look solid from the outside but are porous on the inside.
The outbreak of the affluenza virus has been exploited adequately by top businessmen and continuously injected by the media. Although ownership of new dropouts does not add significant benefit, it is still pursued because it is assumed to strengthen recognition, increase satisfaction, pleasure, and bring power within certain limits.
Look at those who are avid fashion shoppers. Wherever they go, they constantly hunt for new models of clothing, even though sometimes they don’t have time to wear them. Also, look at the emergence of new variants of mobile phones or cars, which only change the appearance or add new accessories that are not so meaningful but are still being hunted because mastery over them symbolizes victory. At the very least, win to seize the market trend and be proud to hold the title of a trendsetter.
Culture has not only applies in the economic field. This epidemic also spread to the political area in the form of position control or the cultural realm in domination over cultural symbols. Like the madness condition of owning a commercial product, the desire to dominate a position is limited to how to get hold of it. Still, rarely questions how much impact it will have for the benefit of oneself and the people.
The desire to accumulate power only causes the banality of the meaning of power itself. Power is translated as control of political resources, trapped in short-term interests, and occupying positions as the ultimate goal. Politics as a tool of social transformation will reach a dead end because political activity only revolves around who gets what.
The banality of power is increasingly attractive in the middle of the “show politics” stage. Those in power are only busy stringing words about how propriety is expressed, not about how a case is done. Therefore, the banality of violence is synonymous with “politics as if”. Democratic political claims seem to be responsive even though the rulers are merely building a veil of interests. Political praxis seems to be from, by, and for the people even though what happens is from the people, by and for a few people. The last political praxis confirmed the presence of a political dynasty.
The banality of power only gives birth to officials with porous souls but is wrapped in perfect dramaturgy. The position is only a vehicle for transporting worldly wealth. While the masses of the people are only played as pretend cheerleaders.
Collective awareness is needed to turn ownership into an arena to express humanity’s commitment through mutual love and sharing. Therefore, ownership of objects (and control of office) must not erase love between people.
Occupying a position is not the ultimate goal but a tool to care for common interests and a vehicle to make a difference in the lives of the masses they lead. This commitment will only be realized if everyone does not let his heart be held captive by property or position but makes both of them a tool to learn the existential goals of humanity.