I've always wanted to hear more experienced philosophers comment on something like this.

Basically what I'm trying to inquire is the limit of a person's agency in a society and whether or not society is, or could be in fact, a monster. I dunno if that makes sense, sorry.

~ Personally, I've always viewed society as a mass of structured, domesticated, and prejudiced savages who live to impose "laws" that they justify with religion and "morals" that the majority agrees with. I do think it's important that the majority gets a fair voice in the affairs of it's people, but not all beliefs of the majority are good...or bad for that matter. What I mean by "good" is what is healthy and fair for everyone. I believe that society tries to control each person (individuals) based on common opinions and theories of principles, whether or not their principles are good.

I realize that a person alone has the power to dress and act as they choose, but much of it is affected by what society wants, and eventually achieves through its overbearing influence. I myself resent this. Because majorities have such self-important opinions and prejudices, one person's ideas and goals can easily be changed through the guilt and shame of being alone. I'm complaining about wide-spread peer-pressure, to simplify it I guess. In the end, everyone is controlled as a herd of helpless sheep; they're too afraid to step aside and support themselves.

I don't mean to say that I want everyone to be ambitious and egotistical. What would be ideal would be a sort of individualistic society that does not shun the minority. I don't care what people say about how people generally no longer do such things (hate those different from them), it's a lie. I don't even know why I bring this up; I'm just complaining about something that will never change. I'm pretty sure that it's human nature to hate things that are unfamiliar, which is sort of selfish. I'm selfish myself for talking about it.

Just asking a dumb question...I'm not used to talking to such people and am ignorant to the rules of logic, so please excuse me.

~ S.A.

most people who are confused as to what society is, and have views like yours, don't actually know what society IS. this can create confusion and be a cause of twisted and confused views.

i suggest you do some readin on the definition of a society, institutions and cultures and subcultures within society, what it entails to be part of one or more societies or institutions within one or more society and the difference between a society and what people call 'society' and what that refers to.

once done with that, look up the definition of a deviant.

individualistic and society are two words that don't belong in the same sentence. no single person is individual. everyone has things about them that they share with others. Infact, the definition of (a) society is such that -

A society is a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society may be a particular people, such as the Saxons, a nation state, such as Bhutan, or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society. [Wikipedia]

Goths, Emos, Metalheads and Chavs are all cultures within society. They could even be called institutions. if you wanted. depends how you look at it.

i think what you have a problem with, may be the clash between different institutions and cultures within society. You're talking more about the reaction by one or more institutions or cultures to the way another institution or culture is. If you're talking about say, the reaction of Chavs or Suits in western society against Emos in western society, your reaction is not really with western society, but the chav or suit culture. not the other culture or institutions in western society such as goth, punk, cyber, or whatever.

I'm not sure. I base all of my opinions on the people I've seen and met. Out of all that, I conclude that all people (within the society you defined) are untrustworthy and think only of ruling out others less influential than themselves and their groups. Since they all have similar destructive beliefs for others, I say that all groups are the same. Groups, in my world, do nothing but destroy. I really prefer to call it the majority; a throng of idiots who would all agree that a person they don't even know, save five, should be burned at the stake.

It isn't the minor things that connect people that concern me. The small things that bring people together are unimportant when I talk about individuals. It doesn't matter if you eat dinner with a murderer, the person shouldn't be associated with, for safety concerns. I believe in separating myself from the undesirable parts of society, and I think that no matter what I will always be different from the person next to me because of my distinct beliefs. There may be people out there like me, but they are nearly nonexistant, since lightning doesn't strike the same place twice. Nature does have some symetry, but perfection isn't natural, thus, I don't think it's possible for everyone to have everything in common. I guess you didn't say that, but I still wanted to express that point. If they don't have everything/the important things in common, then how can they be put into the same group?

1a + 1b = ?

When peers disowned me in elementary, my power had to come from myself. I don't spend wasteful hours trying to befriend others, since I know ahead of time that they aren't a lot like me and will eventually split and go their separate ways.

Thanks for replying. My ideas are based on opinions, which apparently have little power in this field. I'll read some more, but I will never consider a society diverse in respect to the overall opinion it has of self-importance and certain "values" that keep it in so-called "order."

I was mainly talking about the original values of nature that make humans group into reckless racists etc. When the majority has such values, coming from a lack of self-control over their filthy natural impulses, it takes away from others who don't have such ideas, such as the minority or lesser groups. I would like to believe in individuals.


EDIT:

~ I liked reading about informal deviance. That sounds a lot like myself, but wikipedia had "picking one's nose" as an example, lol, something I would not like to do. I still think society (the whole shi-bang; international, worldwide, all people etc.) sucks... : ]

~ S.A.

Part of the problem is, of course, that we tend to shun anything that we percieve as different, whether individually or as a group.

I think that the 'norms' are simply so ingrained in us through our exposure even as young children that we behave this way. Often, the people who tend to desire to emphasize a deviance from that norm are ones who had a difference that was shunned in the first place. It always interested me how many who act this way show the same behavior within their group that they were trying to avoid previously. I'm not sure how this matches up with what you're saying, but I'm a bit tired and these are just some thoughts.

That's true...

There are many parodoxes in the things I say and believe. Even when I recognize this, I still don't give way for some reason. The person I know least is myself sometimes.

~ S.A.

It's funny, I just read Ayn Rand's Anthem, which (if you haven't read it) is a philosophical novella about a futuristic/post-apocalyptic society that adheres to stricts rules and guidlines to avoid the sense of "self." In fact, the overall resolution of the story is the protagonist learning the word "I."

This concept of society vs' individuality is nothing new to philosophy, and there are many arguments for both sides. All with their good points. If you want to take an individualistic stance, I highly recomend works by Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Rand, and etc. I somewhat teeter on the ideas myself . . . although I often consider myself an absurdist and an existentialist, I also see the benefits of strict militant control. There are times when a society can be far too destructive or apathetic when it comes to the overall struggle . . . But when that happens, it's hard to see which is really to blame: society, or individuality?

Speaking of Sartre, I LOVE "No Exit."

Of course, when you put it to individualizied control vs. rigid control, the arguement will undoubedly get to the point where someone mentions the middle ground.

Harlequin -

i find your post quite interesting, mainly because it is radically contradictory in some ways. maybe you're not putting down what you truly mean, i don't know.

you -

and seem to shun the idea of separating others from groups, but you then write -

which in itself is a removal of one person from another group, seemingly because you don't trust them, and they have broken a rule that you believe in. [see bottom of thread to further this later] could it be said that the murderer in question is less influential over you than say, a playboy bunny? the murderer could have alot to bring to the table in terms of ground breaking ideas, opinions, inventions and even say - a cure for cancer, but you'd rather take the blonde with the bozoms...

you follow this with

Which in itself, is quite the egocentric 'big I AM' line, exclaiming yourself to be more influential than everyone within any institution. your statement that your beliefs are distinct and exist in no singular person but yourself is quite a crazy thing to say, comparing yourself to none other but a god, since your ideas are absolute and do not exist in any other person, and that you are perfection personified. do you think it impossible that anyone could have an idea similar to yours? the way you state that 'no matter what' and 'nearly non-existant' is quite contradictory in itself.

I did say, please go read up on what Society actually IS first.

you still haven't grasped the idea of Society and institutions and cultures therein. To quote myself -

the bold and underlined part is an important part of defining a society. People within a society may be, and in most cases will be, different in many ways. It is all about Common Interests. Your statement that people cannot be in a society unless they are identical would infer that unless we are all exact clones of eachother, society cannot exist. Society DOES exist. we are not clones of eachother, and your statements against society and your personal exclusion from it proves it so.

You seem to be having a problem with the fact that no two people are alike. Although as i said, no two people are completely individual, no two people are exactly the same. Perhaps your exclusion has created such a problem in your mind as to the fact that you are unlike others you have encountered so far, that it hurts you and you feel a need to exclude yourself even more so. You will meet more people every single day. You're a young person and there are alot of people out there. New parts of your life that are still to unfold bring new horizons. As far as I can tell, you are still in school. You haven't even started to enter the world. Do not shun that which you have not yet experienced. The institution of your school and institutions within it differ alot from all the others you will encounter.

Deviance is an interesting thing, but understand that a Deviant, is a deviant WITHIN a society or within an institution. More often than not, they break the rules set by an individual Institution and may be expulsed from it or given punishment.

If you break a rule at golf course, something distinct to that place like... wearing jeans all the time, you'll get removed and banned from the golf course. You have been removed from that institution, but you are still part of society. You didn't break a rule they share with other institutions in society, like defecating in public in a sand trap or coitus in full view of everyone in the 19th Hole as a celebration of victory.

Society is made of people who agree to common rules and regulations and have common interests in the safety and wellbeing of others that reside within their own institutions or cultures. You agree that you do not kill someone. So do Christians. It is one of their Ten commandments. You exist within society with them. They may not be part of your institution, but you exist in the same society. I'm sure you agree that stealing and sleeping with someone else's girlfriend/wife is wrong too. Are you seeing a pattern? You're not that individual after all...

No matter how deviant you think you are, or how different or cut off from the rest of society you are, you will share beliefs and ideals with others. This is society. People within society may have differing beliefs, but the common interests are what bring the different cultures together.

Yep, that was what I was going to get at with my first post in this topic. Good thing we have Tozzy for essays at 7 AM.

It's early afternoon for us. Hooray for America insituting Daylight Savings Time when it's still snowing here.

To be true, I've barely studied socialism or psychology. At least not to the degree i'd like to.

Symbolic Interactionalism interests me more. I need to study that.

Somewhat on-topic, I remember the shirts that said "You laugh at me because I'm different - I laugh because you're all the same." The 'anti-' kids wearing them were completely oblivious to the reality that rather than going against the grain they had simply mirrored it. Just commenting, hoping that this will continue in some sort of direction.

I'm too lazy to read all of this right now, but I wonder, Harlequin have you ever read "Lord of the Flies?"

It would be nearly impossible for an individual to be separate from society. Society promotes socialization and conformity to it's norms. Individuals often become socialized through internalization and those that don't are usually deviants. Either way, however, it is usually because of society.

If you consider the Tabula Rosa theory which states that all people begin as blank slates, then we are all inevitably the results of our environmental factors.

If you consider the Looking Glass Theory, it states that we develop ourselves based on how we believe others perceive us. This also means that society decides a great deal about who we are.

All of this drives humans one way or the other. People are either socialized and conformed, or they are social deviants. No matter what you do, you will somehow be a part of some subculture. If the minority was not considered shunned in some way it would not actually be a minority. The minority tends to be just as discriminatory against the majority. The ideal situation would be some type of unity, but all humans are different psychologically so it is impossible to achieve complete unity.

Society is simply the collected culture and behavoir of one human population. Soceity cannot eb right ar wrong, and it cannot be abolished, because along with humanity must come one form or another of soceity. Perhaps it would be better if individuals were allowed to live a freer life that wasn't so dependent on other people, or 'rules' that we are forced to follow.
But you have to think: without a strict form of government, be it a government or the pressure society induces on the individual, what and where would humanity be? What would stop us from reducing ourselves to an animalistic level? And before you say to yourself that we would be able to follow our own morals, what's right and wrong, consider that these would not exist without a collective society in which we are all socialized.
Yes, mass society is stifling, but there is truly no other way for us to live.

An individual society would be anarchist and that wouldn't really work as a um...real society, as in civil.

But it would be one of the higher man from homo erectus days. No morality, or ethics intervening with reality.

Being uninterested in a person you dislike is perfectly acceptable.

Now, let's follow on with this.