Let us take as a given that we have an evolutionary imperative to
come together and protect the group in times of stress (and that
is why we have survived as a species). And that societies have
used this advanced ability in humans to reproduce themselves. And
let us say that a social organization has reached a state of such
complexity that it no longer feels that it is efficient to make
how this cooperative structure works in every instance, with every
person. The social organization has no other choice but to use some
form of coercion in enculturating its neophytes. (If it is a moral
social organization it will make the commitment to go back and
make the whole process explicit in some way when the member reaches
a stage of critical thinking). So there is coercion and there is
nothing bad, but also nothing necessarily good about it. There
is an important issue here, and that is that culture is neither good,
nor bad, it is a tool of the social organization. But now let us
say that a social organization comes to the realization that it
can no longer reproduce itself based simply on the idea of efficiency.
If a culture is a tool, a culture is going to become obsolete. Yet
the culture wants to continue to reproduce itself. The culture can use
the same cooperative imperative it uses for efficiency for ineffiiency
or cruelty if it meets the reproductive needs of the culture. The
culture claims that it is being attacked, that the members of the
culture must band together to save the culture (as if the culture
disappeared the members of the culture would also disappear). Members
are coerced into roles that allow the culture or survive, but are
not really in the best interests of many of the members. The members
engage in the acitivities to protect themselves and the culture.
But the original meaning of cooperative activity has been subverted.
And the culture will do everything to make sure its members _do not_
have a critical understanding of their activity. I think for instance,
Naze Germany might be an extremem example of this.
Just one more word about an individualistic society and I'll go.
I do not believe the U.S. is an individualistic society, although
we promote the notion of differences between individuals for social,
political, and economic reasons. I believe that the whole _individualistic
society_ thing is actually a form of this inefficient coercion. Part
of the way our social organization protects itself is by making the
claim that there is an attack on our individual rights, causing us
to band together, act in cruel manner towards our fellow citizens,
and in th worst case use part of what we produce to create things
like nuclear bombs.
Michael Glassman
University of Houston