They're Fresh Out of Batteries, But They're Still Making Noise
I had an interesting conversation with Nate last night, as is often the case whenever we do manage to talk. However, I dominated the conversation. So I'm hoping that by introducing this conversation into a forum that both welcomes feedback and forces me to eventually shut up, an actual dialog could emerge. That doesn't mean that only Nate's
( Read more... )
you believe that for each person, the right upbringing and social influence will result in a well-formed human being
I don't personally believe this, but I wondered if maybe it was foundational to the idea at hand. There are perhaps a few ways to defend my idea without admitting to this. First, it seems patently true that society is extremely effective at creating people whose behavior is parallel to social norms. Imagine a society rooted in hunting and gathering where subsistence living is important and not dying of severe sabretooth tiger bites is a commendable accomplishment. Do you think that people would be plagued by stress and bipolar "disorders" the way they are now?
That said, it is also true that social conditioning is not the only influence on personality or behavior (thank goodness). You are extremely right to say that the world is not purely deterministic. People choose to take actions or not. These choices are colored by society, but they are not pre-ordained. There is some play between some innate personality and external factors, each creating the other. I think my idea could actually lead to a revolutionary accounting of this.
In our current system, we define "normal" behavior based on the explicit social norms. When people fail to live up to this behavior, we see that as a flaw in the system. Thus, we seek to remove those people from society, removing the rogue element and re-purifying "normal" society. Now I won't say that all behavior ought to be acceptable, but I will make the argument that very little is helped by the dehumanizing process that now comprises our punitive system. If we claim that behavior is not determined completely by surroundings, we must come to one of several conclusions when dealing with behavior that does not uphold social norms. First, they may not hold the same norms as society. In this case, they may easily be convinced to voluntarily leave the society (depending on the level of social friction created by their non-normative behavior). In some cases, they may even be convinced to alter their own values. Potentially, non-normative behavior can even spur social changes (eg war protests, riots, book-burning). I will deal with the fourth possibility (the necessity of involuntary separation from community) later.
One primary benefit of small communities is their ability to customize norms. Even in ways many people might consider reprehensible, it is possible for communities to effect their own norms. They can choose to enforce lawn-mowing regulations, or they could allow polygamy. The point here is that some behavior that a community might consider unallowable may be allowed in other places. For an extreme example:
Rod and Todd live in Community A. Rod secretly resents Todd's special relationship with their father and, in a re-creation of that inagaural homicide, kills Todd. Community A is unable to convince Rod that he should have made different choices, and Rod cannot convince Community A that murder is acceptable. Thus, Rod (willingly in this case) leaves Community A. He goes to Community B. In Community B, there is no law against murder. Violence is commonplace, and disagreements are often settled in old-fashioned duels at high noon. Rod is able to live in Community B, which is much more closely aligned with his own moral compass.
I think these responses, while still oversimplified, offer a starting point for thinking outside of juridical social control. I will think more about how to keep those jerks from Community B from invading the kind but admittedly wussy folks in Community A. If anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
Reply
I think that this system you have outlined still has definite weaknesses. I find the "admittedly wussy" folks in Community A on the right path, except that they chose to have this discussion with Rod after he chose to murder Todd. I think that even a normative system would collapse if there were not serious repercussions for violating the most important norms. I think it would also communitarianism under this system would also lead to isolationism and xenophobia, because when someone entered the community from without, the inhabitants would have no way of knowing whether or not he conformed to their norms. Not knowing whether he was a peacable fellow or a high nooner would lead to extreme caution at the least, I would imagine.
A system in which norms vary widely within a small geographic space would also, I think, make mutual understanding very difficult. Again, in an extreme case, the high nooner, born and raised, entering a peacable community, would be hard pressed to comprehend disputes that don't end in duels, and would be unlikely to participate in reasoned argument, or understand its purpose.
I think you have this vision of people with the freedom to choose their own norms gradually progressing toward a more perfect union. Maybe if everyone measured their thoughts the way you do, but I know that they don't. I have this vision of vast wife farms in Utah, brothers marrying sisters across Arkansas, racial wars in Georgia. This aspect of your vision I reject.
Reply
It's not that I don't believe in right and wrong, but it seems like it would be impossible to say that these communities would somehow shape themselves voluntarily around my idea of right and wrong. So I think people within a community ought to have the expectation of respect for their particular moral code (or normative system), but that expectation simply can't be extended into other communities realistically.
I find the "admittedly wussy" folks in Community A on the right path, except that they chose to have this discussion with Rod after he chose to murder Todd.
Do we expect people to behave perfectly, even according to their own internal moral code. No, because people aren't rational or consistent. To simply administer punishment with no regard for a difference between a fallability that represents a reparable break in the social code and a malice that actually threatens social integrity seems overly focused on retribution. I envision a better society as rather more focused on making people's lives better. As for a necessary isolationism, I think realistically some effort on the parts of both a visitor (to understand local rules) and the community (to adequately communicate their rules) would lead to exactly the opposite effect.
A system in which norms vary widely within a small geographic space would also, I think, make mutual understanding very difficult.
First, this exists already. Even under the strict juridical control of the US, a complete inability of people to even speak the same language (not necessarily literally) leads to breakdowns in communication. Second, providing people security in their beliefs (by attaching them to communities) could lead to a willingness to reach across gaps of understanding. Third, this would likely be a big problem, and I haven't read enough Levinas to have a good idea of how to talk across ethical systems.
As for wife farms and race wars, I think people's beliefs, allowed to foster, would be tempered to some degree by pragmatism. An incestuous community may quickly learn that such a system is unworkable, or else it would be workable to an acceptable degree. If all the women in a polygamous community opposed the idea and left, the men would probably be willing to be flexible (marrying each other or agreeing to some understanding with the women folk).
You bring up a lot powerful criticisms, and I don't know that I can adequately answer very many of them, but I'm pretty commited to the idea that society ought to be better than it is.
Reply
I think, and I see that we will remain at odds about this point, that one solution to the problems we are discussing is to group communities with relatively comparable values into larger groups that agree to be policed by the laws they all agree are their most important norms. Let's call these groups, oh, I don't know, "nations." Then when an outsider comes into this "nation" he must learn and agree to abide by the "laws" while he is within the nation. Thus nations can be responsible for maintaining the norms that its inhabitants agree to. People with mutually exclusive norms can thus be geographically separated from either, and people who find their norms differ from their peers' can drift around until they find a community that suits them.
a difference between a fallability that represents a reparable break in the social code and a malice that actually threatens social integrity
I don't think these two are always mutually exclusive. The fallability that represents that break is the selfishness that overtakes one being at any given moment, that allows him to put his own well being above that of others to the point that someone is caused harm. Given free rein, that selfishness often develops into the malice you're talking about. I don't think the best way to curtail it is to make it consequcnce-free.
An interesting way to deal with serious crimes might be to give people voluntary recompensatory sentences. That way, if they are repentant, or at least committed enough to living that community to serve their sentence, they will serve their sentence, whatever it is (jail seems like a waste of time). If not, they will leave the community and not be allowed back in, which is effectively a death-sentence, right?
This could make for an interesting utopian story.
Reply
I'm not willing to admit that nations are a logical next step that offers negligible costs. The entire point of small communities is establishing real personal connection to others. It's not only about common norms; it's also about be(long)ing collectively.
I don't think shunning or exile imply a death sentence. If you are extricated from a place, you end up in a different place. The beauty of exile is a removal from the community completely. Prison removes the power of a person to affect the state, but it actually strengthens the state's control over the person. If a person is driven out of a place (community or nation or whatever), it seems likely that they'll be able to find sanctuary elsewhere. After all, if you mean a person to die and thus send them into a desert, you're not humane but cowardly.
Also, you still haven't posted your own idea for how a society ought to be formed or operated. i eagerly await this.
Reply
Leave a comment