Thu 10 Jul, 2014 10:12 pm
Man only has two things in this world, his guilt and his pride. Our guilt is our guide, a moral compass, and what keeps us on the ground. Pride raises us up and gives us legs to stand. They are a part of a duality that keep one another in check, we must learn from guilt or succumb to it and suffer from the absence of pride.
Humanity is not an autonomous species, we are social. The balance between our sense of guilt and pride depends on one’s group. If a group is unbalanced then the group will suffer social turmoil, excessive guilt, and excessive pride. There’s nothing scientific about this observation except in how it follows the logic of certain brain functions such as dopamine and likely many other biological processes as well.
If one can accept that man’s existence can be largely defined by the interplay of these two emotions then by what logic do we group all of our most mentally unstable or threatening members together? Why do we group our schoolchildren together by age if they too experience a unique balance of these two universal human emotions which are integral to a group’s homogeneity?
The reason is simple, to do so is easy, not counter-intuitive, and expected to be expensive because the very nature of the individuals in question have been deemed by society needing of help or formal education. We are grateful to have someplace for these people, a place to put them or even a place that masquerades as helping them. It doesn’t matter the cost because we have to do something to try to better special populations, be they the mentally ill, criminals, or children. This is so because our guilt and pride demands that it be so, not just as single cultures anymore either but more and more as the human race.
So then why don’t we make these systems as productive as our greatest thinkers have imagined they could be? Or at least try…
So then why don’t we make these systems as productive as our greatest thinkers have imagined they could be?
Interesting (if simplistic) thesis, but ......define productive.
Are you actually asking me that question or asking me that question to illustrate a point?
Productive cannot be defined except based on the individual endeavor and the goal of said venture. I will not constitutionalize what I meant by productive and neither should you.
That being said, I will give you a definition which begs you ask the same question concerning another word: Productive - Profitable for everyone involved.
Humanity is not an autonomous species, we are social.
I agree with that, but the point I am making is that your thesis is one that appears to assume that individual psychology
(emotions, guilt, productivity) can be applied to group dynamics.(sociology
). That is a bit like saying biology can be accounted for by chemistry.
Now it may be that systems theory
*can help by modelling individuals as nested systems within groups but I doubt whether your psychological language would be appropriate to describe the mechanisms.
When a group of school-children are told that they most go to a center of education or they will not become productive members of society, this is a form of coercion. They are motivated by the guilt inherent in any group of people held not by a logical rationale but through the same deficit deemed by society worthy of general coercion. In other words, when a group of people is categorized by age there is an inherent guilt in their age that they either A choose to accept and then propel that stereotype unto the next generation. Or B, they see the inherent ignorance in the way they have been grouped and instead of feeling guilty for something that they cannot control, they feel persecuted.
Apply this to the other example I gave concerning those with mental disorders. We are a species that are not just outwardly social but inwardly social as well in the sense that we take cues from one another. Following this understanding of ourselves why then would we group people with mental disorders together? If the point is to make the person more sane then they should associate with people who we consider sane. This does not take an exaggerated understanding of the science of the mind. Nor does it take an inflated intellectual vocabulary to comprehend. The reason for this is because it is a reflection on a simple truth of human kind pitted against a simple reality of human civilization.