The generations begotten to open the 21st century in their youth are exceptionally peculiar to history. Born beneath the shadows of expanding sciences, cold war, arms races, and an epic struggle between capitalism and communism we find a new race of humanity: the over-informed, unprincipled youth. Torn by conflicting ideas struggling to take hold within our paradigm, we are left to slide off to any side of the fulcrum of society and become what we believe. This blog analyzes and provides commentary on modern society.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Humanity


In a day in which the knight in shining armor is seen for who he is beyond his glamour, the masses are left to wonder what it truly is that we live or fight for.  Was it really necessary for the founding fathers to declare independence and give their lives?  Are the Iraqis and Afghanis really going to be any better off with democracy than before?  Why would anyone resort to terrorism and is it our fault?  We are led to ask what freedom truly is and if it is worth fighting for.

After examining society closely, Max Weber’s concerns regarding bureaucracy show themselves vividly.  You can see both a deep conflict and a dependency between the system and the individual.  The Charismatic Leader seeks ever to break the routinization of bureaucracy and bureaucracy seeks to solidify and implement the innovation of the Charismatic Leader while stabilizing itself against revolution.  

Victor Hugo examined the three human dependencies of society, religion and nature in his literature.  Les Miserables is his essay on man’s dependency on society whilst being negatively affected by it as well.  Society can be summed up in communication.  Numerous psychological theories exist in which man could never attain his potential to thought and personality without interaction with his environment.  Humanity is innately driven to be social by our mannerisms of learning.

As a result of all this we can see clearly that there are two overarching themes in the human struggle:

1.)  Security Through Order
2.)  Freedom as an Individual

The first is the cause of Weber’s bureaucracy and the second is that of his Charismatic Leader.  Recently I was watching the movie Equilibrium, which describes a hypothetical society wherein in order to prevent further calamity among humanity the government seeks to take away the human capacity to feel.  In the movie we are shown how a cleric (a senses enforcer) who no longer takes the non-feeling drug looks at the lights in the office and sees the beauty of their order and yet wishes to express individuality via having a different layout on the desk than those of his neighbors. 

While pondering the hypothetical system presented in the movie it seems that without feeling there would only be chaos and entropy.  The innate curiosity to beauty that mankind is endowed with allows him to feel a drive to create, to make better.  The world of technology in which they live in the movie does not appear to be feasible due to lack of purpose in creation. 

Perhaps such progress and order might be possible through ethics.  But it seems doubtful, and that it would be forced and not organic by any means.  Order and feeling seem to be congruent.  OCD is brought on by chemical imbalances and is similar in nature to the feelings one feels when in love. (Slater 2006) Order naturally brings feelings of peace and calm, of security and the ability to move forward.  It is natural that positive feelings of motivation would bring us to order, especially if we avoid the feelings of self disgust that come from over-self-gratification. 

As an example, the pleasures of sex and love are meant to be derived from promoting the other’s happiness mutually, creating harmony.  If the pleasures associated are polluted to be self-gratifying, harmony cannot exist and the subject will fall back to a system wherein harmony exists.  This is retrogression of *order.

By cultivating the social aspects of positive motivation via self-discipline our lives naturally fall into harmony, and order the resulting from positive feelings is synthesized.  Ethics is capable of such synthesis, but the subject’s appreciation of the feelings of security associated with order will come at a much slower rate than by the harmony of self-actualization.  Under the ethics model there may commonly be a fallout period in which the subject will explore chaos, perhaps come to appreciate it and come back to the ethical full order or at least a semblance thereof.  If there is an incorporation of what was learned in the chaotic state, there may be additions to profit or not profit the ordered sphere. 

Both by feelings and by ethics order is possible.  Order already exists in the universe and entropy may be countered by the feelings of the subject who, if by choice of restraint from over-self-gratification and by means of altruism, may create order from chaos in the very process of self actualization.  It appears that entropy comes from the desire to draw backward to a previous state of order instead of creating a new order that is more efficient, or that may yet introduce us to a higher form of feeling which in turn would eventually lead us to a new level of achievement for order.

What connects the individual drives of humans in society is identity.  What defines cultures and identities around the world are common **morals and values.  One of the key issues that defines our generation is lack of identity by loss of principle and morals.  If entertainment and education forsake moral standards and teach ***secularism, we are producing highly reactive, unpredictable paradigmatic mutts.

As a result, patriotism, respect for law, altruism, etc. will disappear.  Instead of having intrinsic respect for colleagues in work, school and other social settings, as a society we are compelled to refrain from disrespectful conduct to avoid reprimand for sexual harassment.  

Order is not achieved by coercion, but by the altruism and peace of mind of the individual.  A government can hold some control to promote order via the coercion of ethics but the harder, yet more effective way will be through teaching and emphasizing proper morals which will define the subject, leading to altruistic action and not extrinsically motivated action.  As loss of identity abounds through a lack of common morals, order also deteriorates as a result of over-indulgence in Freedom as an Individual.

Now we come to the equal yet opposite side of Security Through Order.  Freedom as an Individual is characterized by the revolutionary Charismatic Leader in Weber’s essays.  The ability to break from routine and achieve self-actualization is what every sane man or woman desires.  The ability to express oneself uniquely in the midst of the order of bureaucracy is always a challenge but is perpetually yearned for.  Why is it important?

 To our generation it is a perplexing question.  After all, what is freedom?  What is it that leads states to declare independence and risk lives to achieve it?  Why is it protected when in some way or another you will be able to feel and get along living?  In the movie Dr. Zhivago all that the doctor wishes for is to live and be happy.  He does not see what difference it makes who is ruling.  He should be able to be happy by simply living.

He is prevented from doing so because of anarchy in the name of the revolution.  What would truly be the difference in life if we had let the Nazis take over the world?  Why would it be worse to be a colony of England?  Or of Germany for that matter?

The ideals of freedom are based on individualism; the idea that every man is important to the whole.  In this world, under whatever paradigm, be it mercanitlism, capitalism globalism, or feudalism there are classes.  Under each paradigm they go by different aliases; Serfs, slaves, proletarians etc.  The freedom that men fight for is the freedom from class distinction, of being told who and what they are.  The freedom to progress to the next level of order and press on with courage to a better world than to fall back into an old level of order in which there is already security but no expansion. 

The world will remain in chaos until we reach a paradigm in which every man is free from class distinction.  In such a case there will be perfect harmony, a world in which every member of the human family will see each other as an equal and care for them not only for who they are, but also for who they are capable of becoming.  It is not enough to equalize classes legally.  You can regulate what opportunities are given to individuals but you can’t regulate what individuals give to each other.  That will come from who they are; their identity, values and morals.

Mankind is always seeking to improve their government to make the world a better place, but hardly ever do we seek to improve the life of our neighbor.  To build the ideal computer you build the connections on the motherboard or other similar hardware, not the box in which it is stored.  Wouldn’t it be great if we exercised our Freedom as Individuals to improve the Security Through Order in society and make a more perfect world to live in?






*The author acknowledges that there have been many scientists, physicists, artists etc. who led somewhat hedonistic lives.  It should be noted that we are referring more to social order and not personal drive, escape or invention.

**Note that there is no one set of standard morals and therefore does not refer to right wing morals.  In a recent interview with a college student it was concluded that everyone has morals.  Morals are always based on values and or belief systems.  An atheist and a religious person may have differing morals, but they both possess them nevertheless.  The author believes that the separation of states in the world can be traced to conflicting morals and values.  Moral actions are commonly based on the assumption that the recipent of the action would act similarly and semi altruistically in a similar situation.

***Secularism does not denote atheism, but more especially the state’s fear of partiality to any philosophy that is not neutral.



Works Consulted:


Slater, Lauren  “True Love.”  The National Geographic Magazine Feb 2006

Weber, Max  Essays in Sociology

Wimmer Kurt  Equilibrium.  Dimension films, 2002

6 comments:

  1. I would love to continue reading this post, but I am having trouble. The color of the text with the background is not very pleasing to my reading. :(

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe we all can learn a little bit by a familiar children's Christmas carol that states: "So be good for goodness sake!"

    (specifically, "for goodness sake" being interpreted as "for the sake of being good" as opposed to the more trite meaning, "for crying out loud")

    Being good for the sake of being good! And all without threat of external coercion or compulsion -- likely the key ingredient to set the gears in motion towards an ideal, utopian society.

    I appreciate that you take a more realistic approach to your argument, recognizing that neither individual freedom nor benevolent law, in either extreme, simplify the mystery of the equation towards a more perfect word. There's a balance between morality, rugged individualism and overarching law that somehow align in various gradations to make such a world even possible. I guess the bigger question is, by what proportion? It's good to identify some variables, but like any formula, perhaps the key is in the details of the mixing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. After resting my eyes I came back and finished reading this. I find it very interesting. There is definitely balance needed. To me, it is sad to see people who only do things out of fear and not because they believe it is right (or wrong). I think the children in this generation are not learning this. Parents are letting their children have what they want at all costs and don't teach them. When this generation reaches adulthood I fear they are going to have to make laws that lay out every single possible bad thing one could do and outlaw it because they won't know right from wrong. Moral values will be low. It would seem parents are not creating order, rather letting individuality rule in children. Unfortunately, individuality in children is typically not that as they are exposed to so much advertisement and therefore they are more conforming to marketing and not their own mind. I know this post is probably more about society and government, but each person is a part of society and if everyone is brainwashed by big corporations' advertising then society is as well.
    We need to start by changing things in our homes, creating order while cultivating appropriate amounts of individuality in our children all while teaching morals, values, ethics. I think everything in our society begins in the home- in the basic unit of society, the family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (Part 1 of 2 from Rebecca)

    Enjoyed reading your first post. Some rather lengthy thoughts concerning this portion of your post: “it is not enough to equalize classes legally…you can’t regulate what individuals give to each other” and in particular the paragraphs on identity and loss of principles and morals.

    How interesting that Monday night President Obama (who is all for the government taking responsibility rather than the individual though he pretends we are being individually responsible by allowing the government to be responsible) said “Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get... That’s not right. It’s not fair.” And don’t get me started on FAIR. What would be fair is for the rich to pay the same tax rate as the poor. Everybody pays 10 percent on their income, no exceptions, deductions, tax shelters, EIC: take it or leave it. That seems fair according to this definition from the Free Online Dictionary: “impartial…unbiased…consistent with rules, logic, or ethics”. I would argue that the cry “It’s not fair!” is in itself an immature and unfair argument (not impartial or unbiased). Just ask any 4 year old that doesn’t get to do something an older sibling has earned the right to do just by virtue of their age.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (Part 2 of 2 from Rebecca)

    ALSO: The Declaration of Independence claims that “all men are created equal” and some of our unalienable rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Did I read that right? We aren’t actually guaranteed happiness, just the right to pursue it? Ouch. And what do they mean by equal? Does that mean we should all get equal health care, all be able to own a home, all be able to go to college, etc. (we are entitled to equal opportunities)? Or does that mean we are just all born equal in the sight of God (we are equal in our individual worth). Government would take the first meaning and grab power in the excuse that they are providing equal opportunities to all people as a given right while the second meaning again puts responsibility on the individual to provide for others and make the world a better place.

    I have a hard time reconciling the idea that all are actually equal, at least in talents, opportunities, etc. The only place we are truly equal is in our worth to our Father in Heaven. I base this on the following: 16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; 19 These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; (Abraham 3:16,19). I do believe that all are equal in worth though. The belief in equal worth becomes not only my identity but the identity of all men and the key to principles and morals.

    Coming from a large family I can honestly say that all people are not born equal (in talents at least). I can’t play the piano like my sister. I can’t cook like my sister. I can’t sew as well as my sister. I can’t sing as well as my brother. I can’t do calculus as well as my sister. I read a lot faster than my brother. And sorry, no amount of opportunity--whether given through the government or other individuals--will change this inequality. No matter how much I practice, I won’t be as good as my sister at the piano. She is just better; Same with my brother’s voice – the tone quality is just better. And no matter how much my brother reads, he will not be able to read as fast as I (unless I go blind).

    Yet, I believe that each of my brothers and sisters is equal in worth to our Father in Heaven and that belief colors my interactions with them. That one key piece – we are all children of God, equal in worth – changes everything. If belief were universal, we would see much more of what happened on the American continent as recorded in Alma Chapter 1:26-30. “and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength… And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.”

    Teach our “over-informed and unprincipled youth” to believe in their true identity and the human struggle for security and freedom suddenly becomes less of a struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In response to Rebecca's second comment:
    I do not believe that the Founding Fathers meant that we should all have equal things when they said "all men are created equal." Being created equal does not equate to getting equal amounts of things. Created, not entitled to equal. No one is set apart by God to be king or queen. The British believed that the Royal family is set apart by God to rule (specifically the eldest son in the particular line). Therefore, all Royals (kings, queens, dukes, duchesses, counts, countesses, etc.) were in a different class than commoners- all men were not created equal according to their government. I don't think we realize the history behind the Kings and Queens of England. They controlled religion. Our country broke the rules. Historically speaking, the governing church held the power- or maybe it was governing power controlled the church? Hmmm... The two have been deeply tied together until the form of the United States government with separation of church and state. What these men were fighting against were the basic beliefs of the British government- that royal (upper class) were not created equal, but better, than the commoners and the inability to choose other religions than the one approved by the government. If you look at the Declaration of Independence in the context of what was going on at the time, it is easier to understand. We have become so removed from that and therefore seem to have forgotten what it really means.
    This sense of entitlement going around today has nothing to do with equal opportunity. In this country we all have the opportunity to own a home, yet many don't qualify. The opportunity is still there. If one works hard and earns enough money, saves enough, is smart with their money and has good credit, then one should be able to buy a home. The opportunity is there but we must take the necessary steps to take advantage of it. People have forgotten this. Some think this means we all deserve to have equal amounts of everything. Why should a person who works very hard have to have equal amounts of everything to someone who refused to get off the couch? They both have the opportunity to go to school or learn a trade and find a great job to support themselves. One chooses not to do so. They both could choose to do nothing and lay on the couch all day and the both, equally, would be poor and have nothing.
    Many people in this country needs a wake up call! We need to teach our children to work. How will they ever learn this if we hand them everything? If a parent provides every single want for their child, sends them off to college and pays for it, and then upon graduation expects them to go out and make a living this will not work well. Some children may succeed, but most probably will not. We are turning out children who think someone else will take care of them. We need to stop this and start teaching them otherwise.

    ReplyDelete