Social anxiety is a bastardized term—it cannot exist because it is inherently contradictory to the definition of social. To be social means to cooperate and to benefit members of a group. In such a case, there is nothing to be anxious about: sociality is a net positive. Who would shy away from neighbors offering to help in times of need?
Inversely, how can we claim socially destructive acts are "social" when they undermine the very conditions that make cooperation possible? And if only one party benefits, can we consider that a social or abusive relationship? The slave master and the slave do not have a social relationship but a political one, one of power versus powerless. That is why an employer, teacher, or coach will say: I am not your friend. They are articulating an unconscious power structure—this is political in its absolute sense.
For the sake of realism, an agent must be termed properly: a man who destroys a house is not a builder—he is a demolisher. A farmer who destroys crops instead of planting them is not a farmer—he wears a false title.
In that same way, people fear consequences from the group, not necessarily the interaction—because if the interaction led to positive results, it would be desired, not feared. But is this fear a by-product of sociality or rather a cancerous mutation from something meant to be good?
Social interactions deteriorate not because there is anything insidious about the concept of interpersonal relations. Rather, they create a space where evil and mean-spirited individuals can exploit the good faith of others. This is the antithesis of social; it is anti-social.
So here we reach an important discovery in this so-called social anxiety: individuals with this issue do not fear others—they fear consequences from exploiters. It would be more accurate to describe this as anti-social anxiety. Unlike modern psychology, which attempts to pin the blame for "social anxiety" on the individual, this new way of framing the problem liberates the victim from responsibility. It is the anti-social, the soulless individual who is the problem, for he seeks to undermine the social contract for his own gain. These are our gossipers, thieves, and brutes. They have no concept of good; to fear them is legitimate and necessary for survival.
Yet when individuals express "social anxiety," they are demonized as weak or mentally ill and are subsequently diagnosed with such anxiety. This is doubly evil: it heaps undue responsibility on the victim and exonerates the true culprits, leaving the issue unresolved. Granted, the victim here is indeed partly responsible for borrowing this verbiage, thereby joining their symbolic hierarchies. What he must do is refocus blame where it belongs: say instead, I have "anti-social anxiety" because there are many opportunistic and savage people among us. It is legitimate to fear them, and I must take the necessary precautions to avoid such ruthless creatures.
These anti-social persons prey on the weak. There is no doubt about this when examining their elaborate institutional structures designed to coerce desired behaviors—behaviors, by the way, that always benefit the anti-social at the expense of good people. This brings us to another important term in this fight against the bastardization of language: institutional anxiety. In many ways, this anxiety is far worse than anti-social anxiety since it is much harder to avoid; it is often omnipresent.
Institutional powers have colonized countless social interactions, predominantly universities and the workplace—two major cultural centers. A cultural center is a social or political institution that exerts power to influence local or national societal trends. Such influential positions are attractive to the anti-social because they allow them to create and further complex institutional frameworks to enslave social persons.
Countless layers of institutional authority govern interactions. In a private conversation, say something offensive and risk that person filing a report to the various departments, ethics committees, or Human Resources. Express a blacklisted thought at work and risk institutional vengeance in the form of termination, mandatory sensitivity classes, or reputational damage. Even sexual relations with a woman only exist now under the large and oppressive shadow of institutional threat. For if she decides after the fact, or you upset her in some capacity, she may report you for sexual abuse or other such faux crimes. Such anti-social lies are tolerated in a one-sided political environment.
Many of these "social anxieties" expressed by youth are legitimate concerns about an increasingly anti-social and institutionalized culture. No one is safe from "cancel culture" or unfair expulsion or termination. People confuse these anti-social and institutional anxieties for "social interactions" because they have been trained to wear the baggage of responsibility for the exploiters and psychopaths among us. Name them properly. Know the enemy. In that way, we may discover that such anxieties can fairly and honestly be focused on a certain group. Holding them accountable moves us closer toward social salvation. To willingly submit to their terminologies and hierarchies ensures our permanent captivity and exploitation under the anti-social.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com