The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (II)

In regards to the question of “what is the self, what defines or makes us individuals”, the possible conclusion offered (December 1 post) was subjectivity. Moreover we concluded that embracing subjectivity has real, potentially, negative implications. So why do we embrace subjectivity? Perhaps we reject the notion of the objective because of where it emanates from, or what it implies vis vi free-choice?
However, on a basic level every person desires to be special, unique, different, an individual! Is it so bad to want to stand out of the crowd? In fact many of our pursuits in life are geared towards eventual distinction. Riches, wisdom, respect, honor, love etc. all of which we believe will enable us to stand out, and I agree those that achieve these goals do stand out.
But are they special, after all there are always bigger and better; I mean special absolutely and categorically unique?
Thus my question is: “is it true that subjectivity enables an individual to standout to have a sense of being special, OR do we conflate being different with being special, and then argue mistakenly that the only way to be special is to embrace our subjective self?
What if we have embraced subjectivity thinking it will help us be different. A difference that engenders specialness which will result in happiness; the goal is indisputably justified but have we chosen the best path? Furthermore, if embracing the subjective is premised on misconceptions then does it NOW justify the implications of difference?
There is an alternative to all this. What if the only way to be truly special unique and thus happy is to embrace the similarity, to delve and seek connectedness.
Returning to the analogy of the human body-which consists of a number of body parts all with their special function-would these body parts be considered necessary and special as separate uncoordinated parts? On the contrary, their special and unique abilities are magnified and reach fulfillment when they “acknowledge” their role in a larger unified organism.
Thus the human’s uniqueness can be highlighted and actualized specifically when it sees itself as part of a larger and connected body.
But how do we discover our role as an individual human in the larger organism we call international life?
Alternatively, if we do not know our role, can we be an effective and contributive part of the whole, or do we become a cancerous member, one that needs to be cut off for the good of the larger organism?
One potential response is that the maturity that individuals experience mirrors a global process of maturity. If this is so, it may offer the one who does not know their role (or not aware that they have a role) the possibility to contribute. Like a child slowly becoming aware of their role in a family, humanity has slowly come to realize the interconnected roles we play. Or, it can be that like science is showing that which we once thought was unsalvageable (cancer) or unnecessary (appendix) is in fact salvageable and necessary.
Of course even if we don’t know our role we should be aware that we have one. This does not mean that one need be conscious of their role just like the heart doesn’t know why it beats, but imagine what it would mean for the heart-attack if the if the heart could talk to the rest of the body, as in fact our conception of medicine is beginning to show us?
The question that needs to be discussed further is “if subjectivity is part of the human condition, then doesn’t it play a counterproductive role". Conversely, perhaps its existence is the ultimate fault in the position taken here?
What positive role does subjectivity play and how is that role concurrent with the notion of a unity that is not something to achieve but to acknowledge?