Here’s my theory: Being that we do not have free will as individuals, yet we still believe in the concept of free will, is it then possible that in connecting to a group or culture, that this group mass has a free will, and it is this sense of a group free will to which we are attached to the makes us believe in our free will (and indeed, makes it impossible to disconnect from this group?)? more importantly, this group that we belong to– are we necessary separate entities, disparate from each single bodied person, or do we perhaps in our human consciousness possess some sense of a group mind (read: hive thought)? I propose that this group over individual mindset is possible within the context of culture, and considering the plasticity of the brain, it isn’t even impossible to move from an individual based (western) culture to a group-communal based (eastern) culture. Even in America, what some call the pinnacle of western civilization and achievement, there is some sense of the group culture being dominant over the individual mindset.
A little more theory that I’m squeezing in here (I’m editing): individuals can attain popularity and leadership, and this may seem to indicate that the individual is important or has some prime place in society and culture. The world. I disagree with this. It is my theory that the individual is only highlighted and praised in instances that their specific actions benefit most the group, or represent best the interests of the group. This is a very hive mind concept I’m proposing here, but I feel it is a better conception of human psychology than an individual mind that is typically understood in our society. I think every individual human deludes themselves, because really, it’s not something you really see easily, this hive concept that I’m getting at here.
Some examples:
Social networking sites. We developed the internet, technologies, so that we can feel more connected with other people. So that we can maintain that connection even while we’re asleep. Don’t you think that this at least indicates the possibility of a hive mind?
Fashion trends follow along these group dynamics, with masses of people following the lead of a few “queen bee” type figures (read: individual highlighted and praised, represents group)
Fashions are set by designers, kings and queens of fashion, and everyone who is socially conscious enough to fit in (Hollywood standards, the gold star of popular) follows these designers, this royalty of the socialites.
Popularity dynamics, where individuals congregate together into mass groups and dynamics within groups work to make certain people and groups more popular within the greater context than other individuals and groups, again, those most popular are thought to represent the greater community best, this is how popularity is decided, “coolness” is merely a factor representing what is best for the community, “not cool” is bad for community.
fyi, i got much farther before my power plug got pulled by accident and i lost everything that wasn’t saved up to the point written above. so i have to rewrite it all of the below.
Sports teams and how they’re conceived of in our culture. Just the title. Sports Teams it is the team that is set as an example, it is the team that is thought of as a single unit of humans acting together, it is the team that has the title of “bulldogs” or what have you.
In our education system, individuals of a giant mass are broken up into smaller learning groups, where lecture and discussion takes place in the hope that the people might learn something. However, that education has become so important in our society, I theorize that (borrowing from Marx here) education’s importance is prime only because the more educated our populace is, the more uniform it is in its conditioning. Sure, education teaches us to think. “Critical thinking” is a word that gets tossed around a lot here, but really, isn’t it just more cultural conditioning to think a certain way, and come to certain conclusions, to produce certain conflicts? Maybe I’m getting paranoid here. Its late. Hmmm. Anyways, education lends itself to the group mindset, because then this small learning group is bound together as one class, and that class takes to make itself into a unit, often designated with the title of the teacher’s class—“miss frizzle’s class” etc. Though it is comprised of many single unit humans, it is described as one whole class. This classification expands, into such categories as “5th graders”, “elementary school”, “public” or “private” school, etc. We use these classifications to describe and define our place in the world, because that place is all in how we relate to others. This is getting long.
Military organization promotes the group mindset. You as a soldier, you are lowered to the status of a mechanism within a machine, literally integrated into the machining power of military might, marching in uniform lock step towards destiny. You are defined by your status in the military, by your unit identification, by your platoon, by your place in the military (army, marine, navy, air force, etc.) your ability to fire accurately, lift, etc. Statistics that are generally prided upon as individual accomplishments, are merely absorbed as one more number belonging to the machine. There is no individual.
In our process of politics, a few figureheads who are seen as best fit to represent the group are elected to govern and regulate. These figureheads are set to listen to the group, and do as they’re told, or if not told, do as they think they would be told. Democracy itself promotes this pluralistic way of thinking, of placing the community majority’s needs first and prime over the needs of smaller (read: individualistic) communities.
I could go on, but I’ll rattle off a few quickies before concluding… business/the corporate model, science, academia in general, religion, international relations, campus living communities, communes, psychology specifically, the prevalence of “culture”, and “society”, and “nations”, and “states”, customs, social laws and mores, legal laws, language use (“I”, “we”, “our”) there are more, etc.
Ummm, family. Need i say more?
All I’m saying here folks, is that I think that if you look at this critically, you’ll find that a lot of methods that our culture has evolved to maintain and grow itself lends itself to a group mindset, and indeed, I argue that we have adopted that group mindset as our primary means of thinking and processing information, and that the individual has come in second. Indeed, I’d say it’s always been this way. Yet, its then interesting that individuals do believe that they are separate and distinct units from the whole, when really, our whole is one unit, and we “individuals” we persons, humans, people, beings we are but part of the mechanisms of cultural evolution and societal growth. This is what it means to be a species, connected, as Jung put it, by a “collective consciousness” which when I first heard I thought was total BS but I realize now that he was right. We have a collective mindset, humans build cities and take territory as a hive would do, rather than as a… collection of disparate and distinct units, perhaps working together, but still independent and able to disconnect from the ragtag team that is formed. Indeed, this may be seen as some as unprofessional (what is “professional” anyways?), this ragtag team of perhaps mercenaries, but even these mercenaries participate in the machine that is human culture.
Perhaps, at the very least, if this is not how things “are” then it is how they should be? I suppose that ties into the meaning of life, which leads to the easiest answer of utilitarianism, the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, which, in effect, would lend itself best to this group-mindset way of thinking, because it is only under this mindset that a substantial population can grow and flourish.
No comments:
Post a Comment