Societies lack of self awareness?

Smack Talker

I think modern and civilized society understands the necessity to gravitate toward correct behavior, toward humanizing our animal nature, in a sense.

We obviously want to evolve and move on as a species, and more intelligent, thoughtful and considerate behavior is certainly a step in this direction; domesticated, you could even say.

But I do think that amidst this progression, we may have confused or lost sight of some of the fundamental facets of our own nature.
As a result of this, it's possible that we have endeavored, not to control or incorporate them appropriately into our behavioral and mental complex, but rather simply attempt to negate or suppress them entirely.

I think this could be delineated alternatively by simply saying we have lost awareness of certain facets of our very nature, through this evolutionary process.
I think in this day and age, there seems to be genuine confusion as regards this matter.

To cut right to the chase, and address directly the issue at hand, what I'm referring to are the very fundamental (and most powerful, not to mention emotive) animal impulses that we have.
One being to fight.
The other being sexual drive; the will to copulate (and the nature it must embody to be effective).

As an addendum, I think it's worth mentioning that suppression inevitably results in "festering", which by it's nature would insinuate that one way or another, these desires will come into being (but in far less desirable manners), if they are indeed inhibited; or failing this, will incite the manifestation of alternate issues, these obviously being detrimental in their own regard.

So this begs the question.

Given our propensity as humans for engineering solutions to apparent dilemmas, how could we approach this conundrum to yield positive results as regards this issue, while avoiding a compromise in our "domestication"?
lol - that is to say, continuing to grow and evolve as a civilized society, one which lends itself to creating equality and a desire for a greater sense of well being amongst it's constituents, how could we avoid regression as regards the development and nurturing of this positive and ultimately necessary facet of our animal nature (which, let's face it, is oftentimes a very appealing and attractive facet of our being - and for this reason, could be considered a paramount characteristic as regards the well being of our relationships, by example - among other things)??

I know the two sound contradictory, almost in opposition to each other; civilization and aggression, effectively.
But perhaps we could simply get some thoughts on the matter at this stage, whatever your opinion?

Smack Talker

Oh, and just having a browse through this forum, I noticed the recent topic entitled "Good people finishing last"?

I think it's worth highlighting that this topic would be very pertinent to that school of thought, and quite insightful as regards the "reasons", in a sense, for the materialization of that situation.

I'm not sure how clearly what I'm attempting to form a discussion about is being perceived; but perhaps to attempt to elucidate or simplify it, what I'm referring to is our awareness of the mechanics as regards our embodiment of aggression, and vulnerability; others perception of them, their order of perception of them, and the profound affects I feel they have on our sexuality, relating to others, forming relationships, positive interaction, socialization, and communication.

sarkozy

OP: Language is important. What 'self' is there for 'society' to reflect upon. Any claim like this rests on ideas of individual 'self' first. There are different views on this. Some postmodern psychoanalytical approaches posit there is no 'self' (in Cartesian sense of the 'I'). Rather, the theory is of a 'decentered self' which is a necessary fiction to give each person their sense of self-unity.

So, applying that to an even more contested concept like 'society', it seems to me that even with thousands or millions of individual Cartesian 'selves', society is even more radically decentred. Imagine how chaotic a decentred group of decentred selves is.

So society also needs fictions to pretend some social 'essence' exists. But without any essence, how can 'society' reflect on itself?

I'm not being pedantic. Words are really important in exploring this.

Talking Smack

sarkozy wrote: »

OP: Language is important. What 'self' is there for 'society' to reflect upon. Any claim like this rests on ideas of individual 'self' first. There are different views on this. Some postmodern psychoanalytical approaches posit there is no 'self' (in Cartesian sense of the 'I'). Rather, the theory is of a 'decentered self' which is a necessary fiction to give each person their sense of self-unity.

So, applying that to an even more contested concept like 'society', it seems to me that even with thousands or millions of individual Cartesian 'selves', society is even more radically decentred. Imagine how chaotic a decentred group of decentred selves is.

So society also needs fictions to pretend some social 'essence' exists. But without any essence, how can 'society' reflect on itself?

I'm not being pedantic. Words are really important in exploring this.

Language; alrighty.

hmmmm

To address first the "society" reference:

What I'm referring to is, each individual, within a certain society.

Say for example, a selected society consists of exactly 100 people, in a given environment.
Let's say for the sake of argument, this is a village on the west coast of Ireland; population 100.

Now let's say the majority of these individuals lack in, I don't know; higher level education, by example.
They all dropped out of school before their junior cert.

So, what I would say, regarding that society, is that they have a lack of cultivated intellect.
This society lacks in thorough formal tutelage.

In reference to this thread topic, the society I'm referring to is, western society, I guess.
All societies.
Societies of all kinds all over the world.
I use societies, instead of "people" (referring to the human race), as each culture is unique in their own sense, and although an awareness may not be present, ultimately as regards the core of what I wish to refer to, each one is very different.


What I mean by "self awareness", is ones awareness of their own behavior, and how it's perceived by other.
That is to say, a lack of awareness of how others perceive them.

To further elaborate on what I mean by "behavior":

presence, aura, vibe, the feeling our very being imbues within others.

We might be aware that when we walk into a room, by example, and express some form of a greeting, what reactions that may evoke.

But before we even open our mouth, the feeling we bring about through our presence alone.

Do others find us/perceive us as intimidating, obnoxious, unfriendly, callous, cold, withdrawn, imposing?
Do they react to us with apprehension, defensiveness, ingenuity (dis-ingenuity), ignorance etc?
From another perspective it might be respect and admiration almost, but from a distance?

Do they perceive us as being weak, vulnerable, insecure, unassertive, lacking in confidence?
Do they react to us with disdain, contempt, hatred, apathy, derision, ridicule?

Our awareness (therefore, self awareness)and understanding of what facets of our own personal beliefs and attitudes affect these perceptions, and thusly, how we can alter them, and therefore ultimately alter others perceptions of us, alter how they react to us, and in turn alter how we interact with them and how we can relate to them.


That any better? lol

sarkozy

What I mean by "self awareness", is ones awareness of their own behavior, and how it's perceived by other.
That is to say, a lack of awareness of how others perceive them.

Have you come across the quotation, 'To be is to be perceived'? Well, I suppose what I was hinting at in my post was the notion that because the 'self' is decentred, we are who we are, by necessity, in relation to others. And so societies identify collectively as 'they' see themselves as different in relation to other societies.

All those qualities and beliefs you mention in your post, IMO, some about through performing actions in communication with others. What I mean is, societies are not 'essentially' this or that because all this stuff is relational.

Prison Bird

sarkozy wrote: »

Have you come across the quotation, 'To be is to be perceived'? Well, I suppose what I was hinting at in my post was the notion that because the 'self' is decentred, we are who we are, by necessity, in relation to others. And so societies identify collectively as 'they' see themselves as different in relation to other societies.

All those qualities and beliefs you mention in your post, IMO, some about through performing actions in communication with others. What I mean is, societies are not 'essentially' this or that because all this stuff is relational.

Okay.
Just let me try and make sure I understand exactly what your saying here (bare with me).

I'm just gonna quote this definition, for an attempt at extra clarity:

The decentered self is the concept that individual people are not the ultimate source of knowing. In other words, our egos and thinking minds are not at the center of thins as autonomous knowers. Instead, what we know exists only in relation to other people, social systems, and the shift in character from one social system to another.

So, from this, basically the implication is that, we are a part and product of our environment?
Like a magnet dropped into a magnetic field, we take our place, relative to the magnetic forces pushing and pulling around us, and therefore, what we know, is only relative to our position there?

Would another way of saying this be, we become what our environment (our society) "pushes" us to become?
To "fit in", and take our place.
Our knowledge doesn't/can't extend beyond that scope?

One society takes one form (which, as individuals, we conform to), and the next, a different form?

...all this stuff is relational

We adopt/conform to certain behavior as a means to relate to one-another within that society/culture/background?...

Societies are not "essentially" this or that

....but that does not insinuate that on a fundamental level, this is the nature each individual within that society has/takes?


Apologies for the tedium
Just trying to make sure we're on the same page here.

Prison Bird

Just in reference to the "decentred self" definition and quotation; again, for the purposes of clarity, I just want to present another, perhaps more palatable/understandable point of view; perhaps valid, perhaps not.

It pertains to the whole "relative" school of thought.


A guy once said to me, "you never know hot, until you experience cold".
What he was inferring, was that everything is relative.

We don't know or can't appreciate beauty, until we have seen ugly, right?

I guess that's what you're referring to is, we cannot "define" what a society is or is not, as, as you say, it's all "relative".
Relative to the next society, right?

societies are not 'essentially' this or that because all this stuff is relational.

we are what we are, by necessity, in relation to others

Again, you're implying that the definition of what we are is dependent on what others are also, right?


So, just by example, as an analogy; let's compare people to degrees (as in temperature).

Say there's a "society" of 10 people in a room.
Say 7 of those people are 70 degrees.
Now say 2 of them are 50 degrees, and the last is 96 degrees.

96 degrees is considered the hottest, right?
And 50 d., the coldest.

So relatively speaking; say their popularity, by example, is measured as a function of their temperature; 96 degrees would be the most popular, while 50 d., not so much.
He'd be pretty unattractive.

Now, say 96 degrees exits the room.
All of a sudden, the 7 people who are 70 degrees become more so the focus of attention, right?
All of a sudden, they're perceived as more attractive and popular individuals, right?
All 50 cranks up a few notches himself.

But does that really apply?

It's a closed environment.

For anyone familiar only with these "people", it would appear to them that the 70 degrees's has it going on, whilst 50 degrees, relatively, isn't all that bad, but still lacking somewhat in comparison, right?
Re-introduce 96 degrees into the environment or "society", and relatively speaking, 50 degrees is made to look like a total loser again?
You get the idea?

But here's the thing.

Our "environment", is planet earth.
This is where societies of every nature and disposition reside.

And at the end of the day, water won't boil at anything less that 100 degrees.
So, in a set "society" or culture, whatever; the "relativity" argument doesn't really hold water.

In this environment - planet earth - we are what we are, and what anyone else does, or what anyone else is, ultimately, won't change or affect our own status.
If were 50 degrees, just cause were surrounded by people who are 80 degrees, doesn't make us any colder.
Or surrounded by folk that are 30 degrees, doesn't make us any hotter.

I understand the whole "perception" argument, but as I said, water doesn't boil at less than 100.
70 degrees will never make that water boil, no matter how hot he is "perceived".

The only way that can change, or improve, is by our own doing.

Am I on point here?

I'm hoping this is being interpreted as a direct response to the whole "decentred self" argument; that is to say, more than just some tangential hyperbole.

sarkozy

OK, you asked a question about society and its capacity to reflect critically on itself. I questioned the assumptions you were making in asking that important question.

In my understanding, the 'decentred self' concept derives from psychoanalysis (albeit post-modern/post-structuralist). These views, yes, posit that we are influenced by the context in which we exist because we are inserted into it. However, it does not - and this is crucial - eliminate individual agency. In other words: this approach takes seriously the very difficult, nebulous, intractable interaction between the individual and the world out there. OK, so I would say, objectively (as much as I can be sure) if a room reaches boiling point, my blood will boil; I would leave at a lower temperature to avoid physical pain. That cannot be in dispute, this is empirical fact. What cannot be empirical fact are morals, values, social institutions, money ... these are shared ideas which change as humans interact and it is for this reason that social institutions can affect people and social groups physically and psychologically (e.g. poverty). But the universal aspects of us all are that we live, we die, we feel pain, we have similar base desires and fears; what does all this mean is the primary question for us all.

Very importantly, this concept is not strictly speaking relativist. First and foremost, we are physical, embodied minds acting and reacting in a world both physical (i.e. cultural, economic, political institutions, norms and so on) and non-physical (morals, values, ideas). Interrogating seriously this subject/object link, I believe, opens up a path out of the postmodern dilemma by appealing to some degree of universality, abstract as it may be.

But outside these obtuse philosophical theories, I think it's well argued in cultural anthropology that cultural identities (complex as they are) are maintained not due to anything 'essential' in their make-up but because a group believes they are who they are because they're not someone else. Then social institutions kick in to maintain those boundaries between people (conceptual, physical, geographical)

Dr Strange

There seems to be an issue with a possible re-registered banned poster. I will close this topic until the issue has been resolved and re-open it asap. Sorry for any inconvenience to the other posters.

EDIT: And we're back.

Jail Breaker

But outside these obtuse philosophical theories, I think it's well argued in cultural anthropology that cultural identities (complex as they are) are maintained not due to anything 'essential' in their make-up but because a group believes they are who they are because they're not someone else. Then social institutions kick in to maintain those boundaries between people (conceptual, physical, geographical)

Well, that may or may not be the case; perhaps it is to varying degrees in various cultures.

But, as you said yourself, it's argued; it's theorized and speculated upon, but it's not proven.
(Referring to cultural traits/identities, as oppose to geographical boundaries etc, which no doubt have external influences such as finance, control etc)

Having said that, do you think by example, in Islamic culture (specifically Shariah Islamiste's), that they maintain female oppression because they "believe who they are"?
That their beliefs in the "moral rightousness" of their culture justify this treatment?
Or is it done out of what they feel is necessity, given the fundamental beliefs or "nature" that they embody?
Their beliefs (and resulting behavior) being flawed; perhaps they compensate externally?

It is by coincidence that this same culture seems to beget an unusually high number of homosexual men?

Are "social institutions kicking in" to maintain the boundaries that result in the manifestation of this situation?

In my understanding, the 'decentred self' concept derives from psychoanalysis (albeit post-modern/post-structuralist). These views, yes, posit that we are influenced by the context in which we exist because we are inserted into it. However, it does not - and this is crucial - eliminate individual agency.
In other words: this approach takes seriously the very difficult, nebulous, intractable interaction between the individual and the world out there. OK, so I would say, objectively (as much as I can be sure) if a room reaches boiling point, my blood will boil; I would leave at a lower temperature to avoid physical pain. That cannot be in dispute, this is empirical fact.
What cannot be empirical fact are morals, values, social institutions, money ... these are shared ideas which change as humans interact and it is for this reason that social institutions can affect people and social groups physically and psychologically (e.g. poverty).
But the universal aspects of us all are that we live, we die, we feel pain, we have similar base desires and fears; what does all this mean is the primary question for us all.

You mention primary motives, desires, tendencies; living, dying, pain, fear etc.
Examining the very base hard-wire fundamental level of human interaction in this regard:

It's linear.
Straight forward.
Non-complex - on a fundamental level:

There is the strong, and there is the weak.

There is the active, and there is the passive.

There is the aggressive, and there is the vulnerable...

And it is by natures itself, water flows downhill.
The aggressive attacks the vulnerable.
The strong eats the weak.

But the question is, what is it that defines this strength?
What is strength?
Where does the aggression come from?

If vulnerability is only negative, why does it even exist?
Does it have a purpose?

Perhaps if interaction is a dynamic process, the use of vulnerability is a necessity, while the application of aggression an equal one (water flowing downhill, and being returned - a vague analogy in correspondence to the latter); again referring to primary and fundamental interactive forces.

But again, we're being "aggressive", and we're being "passive"...

As humans, what are we really being; what human actions/intentions imbue these feelings?
What is the strongest most perceptible and emotive force among humans/in human nature?

OK, you asked a question about society and its capacity to reflect critically on itself. I questioned the assumptions you were making in asking that important question.

That's right.
Reflect critically, is a good way to put it.
But does that encapsulate an awareness of their rights and their wrongs; an awareness of what aspects of themselves/their culture, they are to reflect upon?
And in doing so, if they subsequently wish to improve, through what means may it be done?

An augmentation of morals and social values?

Does that negate, by example, the hatred among us?
The hatred of one human toward another?

On a small scale, bullying.
The act of bullying is by definition a compromise of morals (societies morals, morals are intended to uphold a sense of humanity), where the strong takes advantage of the weak as a means to their own ends, an act of hatred, or simply put, because they can (water flows downhill, aggressive attacks vulnerable - see previous reference).
Does a good cultural moral foundation mitigate this unfortunate reality?
The answer is intuitive, and obvious on a day to day basis...

Improving as a society would surely start with a single person (building starts with a single brick etc etc)?

But how is it that each individual may improve?

How does the weak become strong, without becoming the bully themselves?
i.e. embody aggression, without embodying the outright nature of it.

And by "outright" I mean, aggression we can control.
In reference to the analogy; the water flows only when we wish it to; not just when the "vulnerability" presents itself.
Being human and cognoscente, not animal and purely emotive - from an intellectual point of view.

sarkozy wrote: »

Very importantly, this concept is not strictly speaking relativist. First and foremost, we are physical, embodied minds acting and reacting in a world both physical (i.e. cultural, economic, political institutions, norms and so on) and non-physical (morals, values, ideas). Interrogating seriously this subject/object link, I believe, opens up a path out of the postmodern dilemma by appealing to some degree of universality, abstract as it may be.

Abstract by what standards?

Abstract because it's an area that appears thus far unexplored?

Universality being the key word; a means of communication and understanding, no matter the culture, the background, the beliefs; as that which I believe incites the most profound differences between cultures and societies, becomes fully understood, and fully embraced, by all.

Secondary qualities will always be that, and may never change (would we really want them to?)
But when we have a clear understanding and therefore can embody integral presence/behavior/actions that exist on the primary level, then not only will a universal acceptance come into being in my opinion, but also universal self improvement, which is perhaps the key to the former.

Jail Breaker banned... again.

You can keep coming back but you're going to be banned again and again and again.

looksee

But he is getting his (very longwinded) argument out there!

sarkozy

Why banned? Totally agog here.

Dr Strange

sarkozy wrote: »

Why banned? Totally agog here.

The problem is that the poster had been site-banned the first time around. Instead of using a dispute resolution in the Help forum or the Prison forum he keeps re-registering under different user names which is automatically a bannable action.

However, we are not sure why he was site-banned in the first place and are trying to clarify the situation with the Administrators so please bear with us.