Since it is not possible for people to live alone in this world, they need to care about other people they live with. While each individual is a separate personality as a human being, they are also a part of the society. On the other hand, it is against social harmony for people to live with the assumption that they are in the center and society revolves around them.
As a requirement of living together, it is essential for each person to live with an interest that will include others. We call it worrying about other people's problems. Just as we share the blessings of being a community together, we have to bear the burdens together. It is indispensable for social harmony to shoulder the burden of a person, to offer consolation to his pain, to find a cure for his problems. For this reason, it is our most natural right to expect every member of the society to be sensitive.
It is a positive development for today that people put other people's problems on their agenda and that they do not remain indifferent to social issues. However, we can still say that we live in an environment of chaos in terms of sensitivity. I wonder if the sensitivities we show today also feed a hidden insensitivity. In order to understand this, we have to read the problems encountered as subject and object a little backwards.
Of course, we are not going to read the sensitivity shown here on behalf of others. However, we believe that it is necessary to draw attention to the attitudes of those who show sensitivity towards the difference between subject and object in events. This may show us that what we see in the name of sensitivity actually means the same as depersonalization. We can also state that the spatial equivalent of sensitivity is social media, which opens the door to another insensitivity.
We can attribute the depersonalization of subject and object differences to the separation of sociological affiliation, which leads to polarization and hatred. Because here it is now more important who the subject is than the content of the question. The basic criterion that determines the severity of the sensitivity shown against the affected and even the actual presence of the sensitivity is the sociological affiliation of the subject.
Every blow to this sociology through the subject is more important than being a solution to the problem experienced by the affected person or alleviating the pain experienced. On the other hand, the subject's inclusion in his own sociological field can prevent people from showing sensitivity to that problem or reduce the dose of violence. Also, criticism directed at sociological affiliation with the hatred brought about by polarization rather than the subject itself can cause those belonging to that sociology to have a defensive reflex against the subject of the event or to trivialize the event. These situations bring along the insensitivity to events with different subjects for all segments.
As we know, although social media has an intense power of influence, it is like writing on water. The issues that are hotly discussed today may be completely off the agenda of social media tomorrow. This situation causes the sensitivity shown against the problems to turn into a means of satisfaction through social media. Thus, the satisfaction created by the sensitivity shown on social media often does not contribute to the solution of the problem in real life, and the rapid change of the agenda can result in depersonalization in real life.
Social harmony is achieved in the heart of people who see all their troubles and pain as their own. The society, which contains differences, should be able to show its sensitivity not through affiliations but through moral maturity.