When Priorities Change... Between Individual Survival and Collective Responsibility

Author: Salim Abdul Karim Al-Hindi

In societies experiencing prolonged crises, not only do the surrounding circumstances of individuals change, but their perspectives on life, themselves, and the community they live in also evolve. With the ongoing fear, loss, and uncertainty, the search for safety and stability becomes a priority that takes precedence over many other issues.

In such circumstances, individuals may become preoccupied with securing their family's needs, maintaining their source of income, ensuring their children's future, and seeking a safer space. These are natural and legitimate needs, especially when daily life itself is a source of anxiety and pressure.

However, the continuation of crises may gradually lead to a deeper change in thinking. Attention shifts from the public sphere to the private sphere, and from a sense of collective responsibility to a focus on individual survival. Individuals begin, consciously or unconsciously, to rearrange their priorities according to what they perceive as more urgent for themselves and their families.

From here, the concept of 'killing awareness' emerges as a state that is not only related to attempts to impose ideas but can also be shaped by the accumulation of frustrations, disappointments, loss of trust, and a sense of helplessness to effect change. When experiences recur that make an individual feel that their voice is not heard, that their participation does not make a difference, and that attempts at change do not lead to tangible results, this may gradually push them to withdraw from the public sphere.

This transformation does not happen suddenly, but rather develops slowly. The distance begins to widen between the individual and their society, and interest in public affairs becomes less present in the details of daily life. The question may shift from: What can we do together? to: What can I do?

Here, individual salvation emerges as one of the outcomes of this situation. A person seeks a way to ensure greater security and stability for themselves and their family, and may see migration, improving their economic situation, securing their children's education, or distancing themselves from conflict areas as opportunities to escape the cycle of crisis.

This behavior should not necessarily be viewed as selfishness, as survival is a basic human need, and it is difficult to ask a person to think about public issues while they struggle to secure the simplest needs of their life. However, the problem arises when individual salvation shifts from a response to an exceptional circumstance to a stable social culture, where the individual's future becomes consciously separate from the future of the community.

At this point, the challenge is no longer related to the individual alone, but rather to the community's ability to maintain the concept of 'we'.

Collective awareness does not mean that a person should abandon their private interests, nor does it mean that they should prioritize the needs of the community over the needs of their family in all circumstances, but it does mean recognizing that individual interests do not exist in a vacuum, and that an individual's security, stability, and the future of their children are largely linked to the integrity of the social environment in which they live.

From here, confronting the effects of awareness cannot be based on blame or moralistic discourse. Rather, it requires rebuilding trust between the individual and their community, between the citizen and institutions, and providing real spaces for participation, expression, and influence. A person does not become a partner in public life merely by being invited to participate, but rather when they feel that their participation is valuable and that their voice has an impact.

Moreover, restoring collective awareness requires reinstating the idea of hope. Hope is not just a positive feeling; it is a fundamental element in the ability of societies to endure and change. When a person loses hope in the possibility of improving their reality, withdrawal and the search for personal salvation become more appealing.

Therefore, the real challenge does not lie in asking people to give up their individual dreams, but in creating an environment that makes these dreams part of a broader collective project. A person should be able to seek their future while simultaneously feeling that they have a role in shaping the future of their community.

Communities undergoing crises need more than just the ability to survive; they need to maintain the bonds that make individuals feel they are part of a shared destiny. When the space of 'I' expands at the expense of 'we', the community becomes more fragile, and when 'I' integrates with 'we', diversity and difference become a source of strength rather than a cause for division.

In the end, what is required is not to pit individual survival against collective responsibility, but to redefine the relationship between the two. A person has the right to seek security, to protect their family, and to dream of a better future, but the community also has the right to maintain its individuals as an active force and partner in building the future.

Perhaps true salvation is to reach a stage where a person does not have to choose between saving themselves and contributing to the salvation of their community, but rather to realize that the two paths can converge.

The survival of the individual is important, but building a community where everyone can survive together is the broader meaning of responsibility.