The last part of the social organism is not a social institution, yet I think it might be the most important part; it is culture. Culture can be seen as the soul, the DNA or the genes of the social organism. Culture saturates and envelopes the SO, affecting it in every way. It is what the SO looks like; how it behaves; what it values and believes in etc... It is who the SO is at its core. This is why changing the morals, values and ethics of a culture-- because morals, values and ethics are cultural-- is the key to social change.
We tend to overlook the penetrating role culture plays in our lives. We regularly speak of freedom in this country, all the while forgetting how tremendously limited our freedom is. We are, in fact, products of our culture, and this truth is central to post-modern thought. So when one thinks of social change, it is imperative to note that true change only takes hold when there is cultural change. For instance, we may have outlawed slavery, but it still remained in the South in different forms for decades; and even after progress was made in the area of civil rights, harsh and abusive racism lingered on. Additionally, outlawing it didn't happen just on its own, as it may not have even been outlawed if not for huge developments in the economy which came through the industrial revolution. Yet still, religion also played a large role via the abolitionists and other religious movements, as well as, the civil rights movement as lead by Dr. King.
So slavery was defeated by different efforts and changes in different SI's, but one could argue that all of these efforts may have not been enough had they not changed the culture of the U.S. It was major generational shifts in attitudes towards racism that really solidified the progress made by civil rights leaders. And ultimately the religious hope of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech drove, and continues to drive, our SO towards the reality of a post-racial America.
Culture can be seen not just simply as the water we swim in, but as a water that influences us in a multitude of ways, and that we have the power to influence as well.
The last observation I want to make is how culture interacts with relationship and religious hope. Thinking of culture as the soul of the SO makes incredible sense when we begin thinking about the transcendent feelings we get in church worship services, or political rallies, or sporting events. In those moments we tap into the soul, or culture, of a SO sharing the same religious hope as it, and feel like the strangers around us are as close as family. Our souls become one with the soul of the SO. The reality that we are part of one organism becomes an experience we feel deep in our bones.
Culture is the underlying force behind the behavior of the social organism. Imagine being able to extract the DNA from one person and inject it into another. If this were to occur, the individual's entire organism would be transformed. This is essentially what is possible with cultural change. The entire SO can change, and I think this truth is the key to maybe all of our social problems.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (The Family and Religion)
If people are like cells in the SO, then family is the substance that holds the cells together. However, for this analogy to work, family needs a broader definition that I'll call family-quality relationships. What I mean by this is that we tend to compare some relationships (co-workers, friends etc.) in our lives family. "My work place is like one big family" we might say. So the better the quality of the relationship, the more we compare it to "family." Good relationships then, the more family like the better, holds the social organism together. Bad, chaotic relationships tend to tear the social organism apart.
Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.
So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.
Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.
So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Government, Economy, Education)
The government functions as the brain and/or the nervous system of the social organism. Just like our brain regulates and organizes the other systems in order to maintain homeostasis, the government regulates, passes laws, creates programs and budgets in order to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. It's the government's job to organize society, similarly to how our brain orders our other systems.
The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.
While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.
Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.
To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.
These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.
The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.
While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.
Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.
To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.
These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Intro)
For the past few years I have struggled to formulate a way to explain how I see the world. What I have had are chunks and pieces of things I believe, but not a way to put them all together into one complete picture or worldview. I was envious of people whom, even though I believed it was a mistake, bought into and ideological system, because at the very least they could explain their view of the world in an orderly and systemized way. I, on the other hand, believed in a theory here and a theory there, but overall felt all over the map. However, now, I am hoping that this has finally changed.
Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.
I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?
If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.
However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.
The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.
Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.
I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?
If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.
However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.
The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Why Wasn't This Guy in "Expelled"?: Thoughts on I.D.
NPR's Science Friday recently featured Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller talking about his new book Only a Theory which takes on the intelligent design/evolution battle. Miller, of course, believes in the theory of evolution, but is also-- dun dun dun-- a practicing Roman Catholic. I don't know if I agree with everything Miller says, but the interview is good and, at one point, Miller takes on a caller who argues with him about the fossil record and the probability of proteins forming accidentally. To hear this part of the interview, simply skip to the middle.
My point in bringing this up in relation to the movie Expelled, is that I believe movies like Expelled, and this whole faction of the Intelligent Design movement, are just as extreme as people like Richard Dawkins. According to this article in Scientific American (yes I know, they're supposedly the "bad guys," but until someone proves their analysis false, from what I've read and heard, it rings very true) Expelled links the theory of evolution with the holocaust by taking quotes completely out of context:
"Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes."
It's funny to me that the same people who despise Michael Moore will flock to a film that uses his same kinds of tactics. So for the same reason I never saw Farenheit 911, I probably won't ever be seeing Expelled.
Why didn't Expelled feature people like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath who are all Christians and take the Bible and their faith seriously, yet are also scientists who believe in evolution? Why did it only feature extremist atheists like Dawkins, who, interestingly enough, didn't even know what movie he was being interviewed for? Why are the I.D.ers so hell-bent on trashing the theory of evolution? I would say that it's because a very specific interpretation of Genesis, but Ben Stein, to my knowledge, isn't a Christian and there are many other people who aren't Christians that support ID-- people who believe aliens created the world, for instance. Technically, I, and the scientists I named above, could be under the I.D. banner, because while we believe mainstream ideas about evolution, we believe that evolution was how God created, hence the design we see in the universe. But I could care less about having theistic evolution taught in the classroom. Why? Because the second God, or anything that cannot be measured using the tools of scientific inquiry enters the picture, then we aren't talking about science anymore.
Ultimately, most of the people that support I.D. believe that evolution leads to atheism, and that's why they're so militant. But, fortunately, as evidenced by myself and a gazillion others, that's a bunch of BS. So how bout this: teach your kids creationism, I.D., evolution or whatever, and let them decide what they think. Just don't teach them that if they believe evolution then they can't believe in God, because that's just not true. If people would just understand that, then maybe we could focus on more important issues.
My point in bringing this up in relation to the movie Expelled, is that I believe movies like Expelled, and this whole faction of the Intelligent Design movement, are just as extreme as people like Richard Dawkins. According to this article in Scientific American (yes I know, they're supposedly the "bad guys," but until someone proves their analysis false, from what I've read and heard, it rings very true) Expelled links the theory of evolution with the holocaust by taking quotes completely out of context:
"Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes."
It's funny to me that the same people who despise Michael Moore will flock to a film that uses his same kinds of tactics. So for the same reason I never saw Farenheit 911, I probably won't ever be seeing Expelled.
Why didn't Expelled feature people like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath who are all Christians and take the Bible and their faith seriously, yet are also scientists who believe in evolution? Why did it only feature extremist atheists like Dawkins, who, interestingly enough, didn't even know what movie he was being interviewed for? Why are the I.D.ers so hell-bent on trashing the theory of evolution? I would say that it's because a very specific interpretation of Genesis, but Ben Stein, to my knowledge, isn't a Christian and there are many other people who aren't Christians that support ID-- people who believe aliens created the world, for instance. Technically, I, and the scientists I named above, could be under the I.D. banner, because while we believe mainstream ideas about evolution, we believe that evolution was how God created, hence the design we see in the universe. But I could care less about having theistic evolution taught in the classroom. Why? Because the second God, or anything that cannot be measured using the tools of scientific inquiry enters the picture, then we aren't talking about science anymore.
Ultimately, most of the people that support I.D. believe that evolution leads to atheism, and that's why they're so militant. But, fortunately, as evidenced by myself and a gazillion others, that's a bunch of BS. So how bout this: teach your kids creationism, I.D., evolution or whatever, and let them decide what they think. Just don't teach them that if they believe evolution then they can't believe in God, because that's just not true. If people would just understand that, then maybe we could focus on more important issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)