What is your theory of society?

[ebola?]

How do you conceptualize its basic constituents, their properties, and their interrelations? Set in these interrelations, what dynamics do you infer (perhaps shedding light on historical explanations and likely future developments given present conditions)? And then what are the according implications for the construction of individual psyches and identities?

ebola

 

[thujone]

English translation: What social constructs are obvious to you, why are they obvious, and how do they react? Considering these social constructs, what predictions do you have about the path society is on? What influence do you think that path has on interpersonal relationships and the idea of self?

Me, I believe society is wholly the result of communication, either with words or actions. Social constructs are fluid and subject to the paradigms of the people (eg. the shift in public perception about the need/use for and benefit of the 'war on drugs'). Most state/federal governments are antisocial entities, enforcing obsolete paradigms in the name of tradition and morality and increasingly against the consent of the public. The internet has allowed the democratization of information, which is great as people can corroborate information and not have to rely on limited access as in the past. It's also awful because most people let themselves get washed away in a sea of irreverent information (eg. what Miley Cyrus is doing. What does anyone gain from knowing this?). I can't say that I have anything positive to think about the future of a society that was given the greatest tool for information dissemination and allowed it for corporations to completely subvert it for their own profit. I think there's a definite loss of individuality and identity when people allow themselves to be commoditized, which is what Facebook has always been doing and everyone uses it anyway. I think it's really, disturbingly fucked up that culture is full of all these clear, powerful warnings (eg. Brave New World, Unabomber manifesto) about how shit is going to turn out and instead of actually paying attention we've all just let it happen, much to our own detriment.

 

[Maya]

English translation: Me, I believe society is wholly the result of communication, either with words or actions. ch to our own detriment.

I absolutely agree with this

I also believe that society is also ever changing as a result of an influential person or phenomenon that affects its beliefs.

 

[-=SS=-]

Haven't got much optimistic thought to offer on this topic. I think we've been programmed for a toboggan ride down the hill and that's the direction we're heading in.

 

[ebola?]

English translation: What social constructs are obvious to you, why are they obvious, and how do they react? Considering these social constructs, what predictions do you have about the path society is on? What influence do you think that path has on interpersonal relationships and the idea of self?

This isn't precisely what I meant, but it's close enough.

Me, I believe society is wholly the result of communication, either with words or actions.

Please stop me if I'm accidentally interpreting you with insufficient nuance, but what of the role of force, particularly violence, in society? And what of linguistic acts that are performative rather than communicative in a literal sense (eg, a priest/minister 'pronouncing' a couple man and wife)?

Social constructs are fluid and subject to the paradigms of the people (eg. the shift in public perception about the need/use for and benefit of the 'war on drugs').

But then how do we explain 'social momentum', that people hold on to routine and traditional meanings and practices quite readily, sometimes to the point of deeming change to them a virulent threat? But regardless, what causes what types of social change in which domains in what ways?

Most state/federal governments are antisocial entities, enforcing obsolete paradigms in the name of tradition and morality and increasingly against the consent of the public.

But then how do we explain vigorous mobilization of organized groups of volunteers in support of political actors with such anti-social aims?

The internet has allowed the democratization of information, which is great as people can corroborate information and not have to rely on limited access as in the past. It's also awful because most people let themselves get washed away in a sea of irreverent information (eg. what Miley Cyrus is doing. What does anyone gain from knowing this?).

This actually runs parallel to the Frankfurt School's critique of mass-culture leveled in the fifties and sixties...and shows more distant similarities to Veblen's critique of conspicuous consumption and Tocqueville's hesitations about erosion of critical thought via mass-sentiment.

I can't say that I have anything positive to think about the future of a society that was given the greatest tool for information dissemination and allowed it for corporations to completely subvert it for their own profit.

What do you think about interstitial pockets of resistance, such as various mobilization and coordination of protests via various social media?

I think there's a definite loss of individuality and identity when people allow themselves to be commoditized, which is what Facebook has always been doing and everyone uses it anyway. I think it's really, disturbingly fucked up that culture is full of all these clear, powerful warnings (eg. Brave New World, Unabomber manifesto) about how shit is going to turn out and instead of actually paying attention we've all just let it happen, much to our own detriment.

I agree, for the most part. The a-political character of most of the semi-recent looting/riots in London demonstrated that conditions of near complete colonization of interaction and selfhood by commodities nullify resistance even when exploitation and domination are abjectly visible--looters pose no political threat to the dominant order and in fact reinscribe the myth of its necessity.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Oh, and here's my answer to the questions I posed, in a form that's probably a lot longer than anyone'd like to read.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/...ial-ontology?p=5887211&viewfull=1#post5887211

ebola

 

[laugh]

something between epicureanism and marxism. free trade is a good theory but its never actually free trade is it. the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer or at least not getting ahead is not right. the same families have been in power for centuries. id bemuses me we society allows this.

why cant people understand we are all one, we are all made in 'dogs' image, we are all brothers & sisters, hurting a neighbour is hurting oneself. treat others how you would like to be treated.

there is no dog, there is no saviour, there is no heaven or hell, religions shouldnt need to compete they should be helping one another. i do hope there is a universal mind to be absorbed back into when this ride is over.

i really feel its time to break down all borders. we dont need countries and boundaries we are all one and we should all be working together for a common purpose. i also feel our population is now unsustainable and way to high mostly thanks to bloody religions competing. religion has done more harm than good. a tool to control the masses.

fear rules our society. fear of hell. fear of not having a job. fear of dying. compassion > fear. religion is based around fear. religious people are scared. even darwin had his bets placed one each way.

i agree with a lot of what thujone stated/noted 'brave new world' is not that far off into the distance. ivf and that sort of science is going to pose some very challenging issues soon enough. is it ok for parents to choose their childs hair colour, height, resistance to disease, intelligence, gender, where is the line to be drawn?

i dont know this stuff is pretty deep, but i am personally very interested in the topic. cool thread

 

[thujone]

Please stop me if I'm accidentally interpreting you with insufficient nuance, but what of the role of force, particularly violence, in society? And what of linguistic acts that are performative rather than communicative in a literal sense (eg, a priest/minister 'pronouncing' a couple man and wife)?

Violence is typically chaotic, by force do you mean coersion? Also, does the priest not preface that part about man and wife with "by the authority vested in me"? I suppose he's declaring that he sees a union as legitimate, expecting that those who recognize the source of his authority will take his word for it. Legally, people who witness a wedding ceremony are considered credible testimony in divorce proceedings.

But then how do we explain 'social momentum', that people hold on to routine and traditional meanings and practices quite readily, sometimes to the point of deeming change to them a virulent threat? But regardless, what causes what types of social change in which domains in what ways?

I imagine it could be a for a number of reasons. Some people defend the status quo recognizing that they have the most to lose if everything were to change. I guess the same logic would apply to people who hang onto ancient traditions because of faith. Some people structure their whole lives within the context of certain ideologies, accepting the validity of a new ideology that completely obliterates the old would probably cause some profound sense of loss.

In regards to the last part, I'm confused as to what you're looking for as the catalyst of social change. Is it one event, or a series of events? To simplify, I think conflict is the major force for change, but after the guns go quiet there has to be some communication as to what the new status quo will be or there can't exist an order that could be called society.

But then how do we explain vigorous mobilization of organized groups of volunteers in support of political actors with such anti-social aims?

Mass hysteria or other political or fiscal motives, I assume. Ron Paul has a surprising amount of support considering the American way of life would be in shambles if the country were to actually adopt his proposed foreign policy. Rather than debate that point I just want to point out that, even in a period of great austerity, all G8 countries continue to spend an astronomical amount of money maintaining a military presence in the direct viscinity of top OPEC trade partners.

This actually runs parallel to the Frankfurt School's critique of mass-culture leveled in the fifties and sixties...and shows more distant similarities to Veblen's critique of conspicuous consumption and Tocqueville's hesitations about erosion of critical thought via mass-sentiment.

I wouldn't know, but I'd be interested.

What do you think about interstitial pockets of resistance, such as various mobilization and coordination of protests via various social media?

I think they are often lead by people who have no idea where to proceed from the first milestone. There are too many ambiguities involving the word resistance. Is it a show of spirit? Failed revolutions drag on as resistances. Successful revolutions typically turn into full-on war and it consumes the principal players. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." "History is written by the victors." The only inexhaustable truths seems to be the magnetism of an individual and the power of their convictions.

I agree, for the most part. The a-political character of most of the semi-recent looting/riots in London demonstrated that conditions of near complete colonization of interaction and selfhood by commodities nullify resistance even when exploitation and domination are abjectly visible--looters pose no political threat to the dominant order and in fact reinscribe the myth of its necessity.

ebola

I'll have to sober up before I can digest this part.

 

[ebola?]

free trade is a good theory

I think that it doesn't work in theory.

Violence is typically chaotic, by force do you mean coersion?

Interpret it how you want, but how does coercion relate to overt violence?

In regards to the last part, I'm confused as to what you're looking for as the catalyst of social change.

Yeah. Like in what types of situations, with which sets of conditions present, would we expect social changes? What would these changes look like? Eg, for Marx, when social conditions present possibilities for further human enrichment and actualization, but these possibilities are fettered by other social conditions (ie, when there is a contradiction), we should expect transformation via class-warfare.

As for what the event that causes change will be for various types of change, I would expect things to prove even more unpredictable. I don't think sociology yet has a good grasp on social change, but it has a ton of theories about it.

after the guns go quiet there has to be some communication as to what the new status quo will be or there can't exist an order that could be called society.

Yet coherent, intentional design of post-revolutionary configurations remains somewhat rare.

Mass hysteria or other political or fiscal motives, I assume.

Right. So then what conditions tend to imbue people with political motives?

I wouldn't know, but I'd be interested.

The Frankfurters argued that under late-stage capitalism, the ideological superstructure takes on its own life, to maintain systemic stability. Central is the 'culture industry', which precludes class-consciousness by producing endless entertaining distraction. For Marcuse, this penetrates into the psyche, precluding full realization of eros by redirecting the id.

The only inexhaustable truths seems to be the magnetism of an individual and the power of their convictions.

But is it single charismatic individuals who are responsible for social change, or are they just catalysts, falling into their role when social conditions are ripe for change?

ebola

 

[ebola?]

I, for one, don't have a unified theory of society. There are a number of theoretical lenses which I like to adopt (eg, neo-Marxism, Foucault, Bourdieu, symbolic interactionism), but nothing captures the totality. I find this personally problematic, as it is my inclination to hold unified theories about things.

ebola

 

[thujone]

Interpret it how you want, but how does coercion relate to overt violence?

Depends on the power dynamic between the coercer and the party being coerced. "The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must". The atom bombs dropped on Japan were ultimately the violent consequence of the failure of the Japanese leaders to capitulate. Hubris is a dangerous thing.

Yeah. Like in what types of situations, with which sets of conditions present, would we expect social changes?

Revolution by force. Bureaucracies have historically shown a willingness to oppress up to and beyond the point where the public realizes they will only be taken seriously if they start shooting. What's really fucked up is that the more well-off a society is, materially, the more heinous shit the public will accept. There was no call to arms following the Kent State shooting. Yet fifteen years before that, a city in Europe blew up in unplanned, violent revolution over the exact same situation. The main difference was that Soviet-style living was never really as comfortable as life in the U.S. even during the height of the Vietnam War. I think the monologue from the movie Network really speaks to this particular truth. We know there is injustice going around and as the walls get narrower and narrower we want to clash against them but hey, as long as we have our 'toaster and tv and steel-belted radials', we're not so keen to risk out lives for anything better.

Yet coherent, intentional design of post-revolutionary configurations remains somewhat rare.

Perhaps that is why history persists in repeating itself.

Right. So then what conditions tend to imbue people with political motives?

It varies from person to person. I only get involved in working for change in issues that interest me and it really frustrates me when I just can't get through to some people and have them understand how important my issue du-jour is, but ultimately I can't force them to help me change things if they really genuinely do not have an interest in the issue.

The Frankfurters argued that under late-stage capitalism, the ideological superstructure takes on its own life, to maintain systemic stability. Central is the 'culture industry', which precludes class-consciousness by producing endless entertaining distraction. For Marcuse, this penetrates into the psyche, precluding full realization of eros by redirecting the id.

Ah, that does make sense. American society is completely enslaved now by the allure of the culture mill. It's borne entirely by capitalism. I was talking to a friend recently about this issue and his response was something to the effect of: "well what would be the point if it didn't make money?" It scares the shit out of me that culture has been reduced to a footnote in some grand economic experiment. I fantacize about a world in which people engage in activities out of passion, without expecting payment, and somehow I'm the cynic. Funny thing is they say insane people don't realize they're insane. I guess then it wouldn't be too much of a leap to draw the conclusion that every individual who subscribes faithfully to mainstream society is completely fucking nuts.

But is it single charismatic individuals who are responsible for social change, or are they just catalysts, falling into their role when social conditions are ripe for change?

ebola

Both, I suppose. I mean it really depends on how much the individual had to struggle on his own before other people were willing to take up the flag, doesn't it?

 

[pmoseman]

This is my guess.
We are not sure what society is doing; we can see through a number of lenses (aspects of our personality) a number of possible societies.
Circumstance in our own lives shape our view of society and society can only be understood by relation to individual groups.
Groups exist as a set of self appointed, generally, individuals. The identity of the group is made from at least one selected trait. If an individual or individuals seem to have that trait they are identified as leadership in the group.
This is one way to identity a group, the shared experience of possessing a trait that members enjoy.
The group may identify itself with a non-member of the group, like a fictional character, a famous person, or an inanimate object with perceived traits. An individual looking in at the group, in this sense, belongs to the group. The outsider who wishes to not be seen as part of the group needs to make it overtly apparent, either through an action that goes against an aspect of the group they see as its trait. They can communicate in some other way an opposition to the formal identity of the group. They may have to delve into learning more about the group in order to oppose it better, otherwise they may be misidentified as a member.
Individuals in a group more or less have a shared identity they enjoy. Most often another member in your everyday groups. You will belong to many groups.
When we look at society as a whole it is in relation to some lesser group we have associated with. Seeing a similarity or disimilarity between that group and a given aspect of society, this can give us an approximation of society.
We seek to join groups that fit in this mold as well as fall outside of it.
We rarely associate with two groups in conflict. We either choose one group and this must be displayed overtly, or we defer ourselves to be outside the group, without drawing any real attention to the fact.
We may decide to divide the conflict across both groups instead of between them. This rarely works but being an outsider move, removes us in a sense from the conflict.
Conflicts between groups arise when membership is threatened, either by the entry of another group into the festivities, altering composition, or when an overt dismissal of the group is recognized.
Odds are weighed and a conflict emerges. The belief in your own loyalty to the group is rewarded by mutual aggression. The reward of victory is transfered while the risk is deferred, to individual members. If the group perceives the same thing you are seeing as a threat, it can be seen as a good conflict.
Each individual may react to alter society dramatically as a larger entity, like the colors of a cuttlefish. We have no real perspective on what is going on in society larger than a group.
Group form with no clear goal but to be identified as such, each person adds a portion of there own personality to informal group personality. This may end up dominating perception of the group.
Safety seems a high priorty and conflict is avoided by excluding such members. This is the most subtle of all displays, telegraphed by emotional cues.
The authority of these groups can alter dramatically. The value of a person excluded from a group should be diminished. Being allowed to join another group, after getting ousted from one, may trigger a conflict. As in the conflict expected when Russia allowed a suspected traitor from the US to enter their country. If he was intentionally ousted however, he may not have been allowed to enter the country as it could be seen as a lowering of standards. As it is, him being allowef to stay has inflated Russian authority over the US
Countries are such large groups yet we still identify them by a few individuals, as we would for a much larger group. Divisions in the country are equally defined by sometimes reluctant leadership. Little attention is paid to individuals within.
Group and individual are interchangeable terms.

 

[Jabberwocky]

My theory of society is variable and dynamic. Having an open mind is a core desirable characteristic for members of society; establishment of modern inductivism and deductivism in conceptualising the scientific enterprise has been a cornerstone of progression for society, in my opinion.

A critical aspect of this positive progression was the birth of modern ways of reasoning (that is, the cultural forms reasoning takes). For this to happen there had to be a destruction of the older ways of reasoning (again, their cultural forms). So through critical thinking in the strong sense, one may build on the shoulders of their predecessors to make society a better place.

As mentioned above, establishment of modern inductivism and deductivism in conceptualising the scientific enterprise was/is core to much of today’s entrenchment in science (thus progression of society in the observable world); indeed, it may well be that society progresses from democracy to an apolitical form of technocracy (perhaps with a resource based economy, not unlike the ideas presented in the Venus Project by Jaque Fresco) if we can continue on this path where ‘invention of ways of reasoning’ continues to supersede older ways of being.

During "The Enlightenment Period", through Bacon, Descartes, and Hume (who appear to have taken on this job self-consciously and deliberately, believing they were ushering in a new age of reason), there was an argument that the power of induction was, if done properly (unlike ancient philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle), a better way of processing information. It was argued that Newton was successful because he was a champion of Baconian inductivism (and empiricism) and cartesian deductivism (and rationalism). This ‘new science’ can be understood as a more recent and relevant way in which people can ‘reason together’ about nature, and do so in new institutional frameworks.

Right now I think Francis Bacon was fairly accurate, if not apt through his discussion of the four idols, and their relation to society.

In Bacon’s own words: “Once a man’s understanding has settled on something (either because it is an accepted belief or because it pleases him), it draws everything else also to support and agree with it”. So please, let me for a moment do that with what I am currently reading in The New Organon…

The four idols were described as “kinds of Illusions which block men’s minds”. There is some discussion as to false notions getting a hold on men’s intellects, getting profoundly rooted in them, blocking the access of truth.

The four names of idols are referred to as “idols of the tribe”, “idols of the cave”, “idols of the market place”, and “idols of the theatre”. For humans to be forewarned of these idols is said to arm them against the resulting ‘mischief’.

How to banish these idols is presented as formation of notions and axioms by means of true induction.

Idols of tribe: these are found in the tribe of mankind itself; it is asserted that having one’s senses being an ultimate measure of things is a false or wrong way of analysing what we observe (for example, common sense); this is because human understanding is “like an uneven mirror receiving rays from things and merging its own nature” – distortion and corruption is the result of perceiving things in our own way (what we see is relative to us, for the most part).

Idols of the cave: these are said to be illusions of each individual (separate from aberrations of human nature in general). The light of nature’s said to be distorted in each man’s cave for any one of a number of reasons, or a combination, or part thereof: the unique and particular nature of each man; or perhaps due to upbringing and the company kept; or from reading of books and the authority of those whom one respects and admires; or because of the different impressions things make on different minds. It is mentioned that one’s mind is often preoccupied and prejudiced, or calm and detached, etc. The irregularity and variable nature of ‘the human spirit’ is said to be almost haphazard.

Idols of the marketplace: said to arise through human association with one another; the name derives from human exchange and sense of community. Humans are said to choose words to suit the understanding of the ‘common people’; a poor and unskilful code of words results, and this choice of words is said to obstruct understanding. Educated people are mentioned; they are said to not restore the situation because of the ‘definitions and explanations’ used to ‘liberate’ themselves from these ‘common people’. Thus, poor choice of words does violence to understanding, confusing things to the point that we, as humans, are betrayed into ‘countless empty disputes and fictions’.

Idols of theatre: illusions that have ‘made their homes’ in our minds from different philosophies, dogmas, and ‘mistaken rules of demonstration’. These illusions, or ‘plays’, have been performed so many times in our minds that ‘false and fictitious’ worlds are the result. Many principles and axioms of science are also said to play a part; they have grown strong through tradition, belief, and inertia.

I also like this quote:

"The human understanding is ceaselessly active, and cannot stop or rest, and seeks to go further; but in vain. Therefore it is unthinkable that there is some boundary or farthest point of the world; it always appears, almost by necessity, that there is something beyond."

Or, in other words, for the mathematically minded (with knowledge of convergence, in particular): "…it cannot be conceived how eternity has come down to this day; since the distinction which is commonly accepted that there is an infinity of the past and an infinity of the future can no way stand, because it would follow that there is one infinity which is greater than another infinity, and that infinity is being consumed and tends towards the finite."

And so, it may be, that we are all (individually and as a society) just wondering around aimlessly in the dark, trying to make sense of things we are unable to see or understand properly

 

[Pagey]

Let's see...
I think 'society' as we know it today is essentially a forced construct/idea designed to motivate discipline in a world where we're often being boxed into certain situations and categories. In this sense, the concept of 'society' is one that makes this somewhat forced order easier to accept and harder to put into question as we're led to believe in a unified mix of individuals. It gives us something to stick by and support and I do believe that without this notion, the organised world as we know it would very probably crumble.
Because of this, I think it's a concept that tends to limit the construction and development of individual psyches/identities and rather restricts us to easier, more 'practical' states of mind and beliefs. I don't have a particular theory on where this is going to lead but I can imagine it'll probably go to one of two extremes - either society will crumble as the idea of individuality is truly revolutionised, or it'll end up severely reinforced as the idea of individuality is eventually eradicated.

 

[pmoseman]

…it cannot be conceived how eternity has come down to this day; since the distinction which is commonly accepted that there is an infinity of the past and an infinity of the future can no way stand, because it would follow that there is one infinity which is greater than another infinity, and that infinity is being consumed and tends towards the finite.

This is a quote from a different time. The distinction of infinite past and infinite future does not seem to be commonly accepted now. In mathematics an infinity can be greater than another. So I do not see why this would follow from there being an infinite past and infinite future. The belief now is not in an infinite past and future, yet there is belief in greater and lesser infinities.
An infinite string of 5s subtracted by an infinite string of 4s would be an infinite string of 1s, yet the universe has an origin.
His other assertion also does not follow in any way I comprehend from there being an infinite past and future, that infinity would be consumed and tend toward the finite. I think he means that infinite expanses are not natural, but how does Bacon know?
We presume a beginning to an infinite string of 1s, giving each 1 a specific place, to out well beyond our reach. If there was an infinite start and end to the string (2xinfinity=infinity), then there would be no single 1, distinct from any other 1, to call the starting point. Nature is not going to arbitrarily pick a starting point within an infinite string of 1s and place all the other 1s in relation to it. Nature may not do that, but that does not mean an infinite string does not exist and that MAN cannot have a finite place in infinite existence, which has no origin, within a universe of distinct in origin. There may be a whole string of original universes, which are part of an infinite non-repeating string, then although to nature there is no distinction and all moments exist simultaneously as the infinite, to ourselves there is distinction. Now.
I am going to strain myself to bring this back to a discussion about society.
To bring this all back to the topic of society modeling, this all means that we are rooted in nature but must come to understand our own universal laws; since we are one with nature in one infinite and one universal sense, our distinct universal existence as mankind cannot take its lessons from the rest of the infinite existence in which we root, since existence itself is random, infinite, and unrelated to our time and our place.
Society works for some unintended reason, the infinite will not tell us why it does or what it does, the infinite only tells us that all society is doomed to continue forever, since we can begin at only one point and the all has no thoughts on the matter of ending anything. It is also apparently up to the universe, to contradict the eternal nature, and to set a number of years before we cease to be anything any common sense person would consider a universe. Non-interactive, free particulates of matter.
When looking at society we are dealing with these 2 opposing natures, one that is consistent and universal, another that is dodgy and eternal. You cannot say, fly a space ship into another universe with any expectation of result, just as you cannot leap from one society to another and expect your rocket to fly straight or even fly or even be considered a rocket. Yet you enter it.
Societies can busy themselves working out how to prolong existence. Or they can enjoy what they have. There is no end to what they can value. All the separate societies throughout the world all have equally valid solutions and the more variety we come up with, I think, the better we are for it.
Society has a role to play in unraveling the answer to why. The question why is answered by thinking about what we want the answer to be, an answer becomes known as a society. That solution may seem trivial to some, but expecting answers to come at us through the infinite mind is like waiting for dice to roll themselves.

 

[Foreigner]

"Society" is group-speak, and humans seem to need it. People in long-term solitary confinement eventually create their own society through psychological self-talk. Functionally it looks a lot like schizophrenia but it's really just a coping mechanism to allow the group-speak connection to still take place. So, regardless of our agreed definition of society, we seem to need one.

I view society as a dialectic wheel where the same themes are repeated endlessly over and over again throughout time. This has all happened before and will happen again. My hope is that with each turn of the wheel there is incremental improvement, or some kind of gradual awakening process, perhaps even tied to evolution. It's hard to see beyond my own finite life to discern any kind of grand scheme.

Society is the macro to our individual micro. Much like how the modern day internet is looking more and more like a neural network, humans require a framework of "society" in order to sustain group-think and shared existence. Tied to this, a society's utilitarian value is directly tied to its ability to integrate change. Just like an individual self-destructs if the conflict is too create, the societal organism does too. If there is too big of a delay between the stages leading to acceptance, then a society collapses.

 

[ebola?]

Maybe to sharpen focus, I should have put forth a provisional definition of society. Let's say that it's a partially bounded (well, world society is fully bounded) group of people in SOME type of set of mutual interrelations, mutual dependence being the most important one, but from there, social relationships can vary greatly. A society is bounded by occupying a geographical area capable of sustaining its population (in particular in terms of raw materials). A society also in some sense has a common culture, though it might coexist with diversity of cultural practices among sub-groups (to the point of stark differences and geographic enclaves). Now, using this definition, we are talking about world society.
...
So, can I even answer my own question? not really. . .there are many theories that capture isolated dynamics of society, within particular domains, leaving the majority of the socio-systemic whole unintelligible, but there is no unified theory of what societies consist of and what dynamics their relations entail. This is analogous to the current failure to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. There is no equivalent to physics' M-theory (colloquially, string theory). Oddly, nearly all researchers seem to have given up on the project of establishing a unified theory, particularly with those who've taken the post-modernist turn.

I believe there a discernible reason behind this failing: to study society is to study the cooperative group in which the researcher inheres. This group both inscribes the characteristics of the researcher (as occupying a particular role and identity) and a schematic of society in the in his or her psyche (as is evident by our tendency to asses our own behaviors, thoughts, desires, etc. through hypothetical social structures, meanings, and role-defined individuals). Even with those researching 'exotic' cultures, one must contend with the interaction between the social imprint expressed by the researcher and those of of subjects of study. As the researcher enters the 'field' and begins to observe, such investigation necessarily entails that the researcher intervene upon his or her object of study; the researcher must include him or herself as data to be collected if the study is to be fully exhaustive, as he or she is part of the society being researched (or at least part of the data set* of that society). However, in observing, the researcher alters the system under investigation**That system is then different from the one the researcher desired to understand (perhaps slightly overall, but severely so in the primary field-settings and the researcher's data-set). This process occurs iteratively, further 'distorting' the data obtained.

Thus, we cannot truly understand society exhaustively adequately via singular grand theory.


*I'm using "data set" loosely. This can include qualitative assessments.
**This is even true with 'non-invasive' techniques like remote video recording, as the researcher intervenes upon the social system codified as data in parsing out and conceptually framing his or her object of study.

 

[Trying2Iso]

Based on what I've seen i have a few "drivers" of the world in mind
Money, politics, religion, and EGO
I think ego and money are the biggest of those
Love doesnt do much anymore, i don't believe in miracles in daily life, at least that's how it looks from the perspective of a millenial borne from cleveland

 

[L2R]

short answer: i think our genetic compulsion to protect our genes, coupled with our capacities to think and create with increasing and exponential complexity, is a recipe for our own extinction unless we overcome the compulsion with unnatural barriers.

in other words, we look after "our own" before we look after "others". this is destructive to society, but it is completely natural. it leads to competition and nationalism, two of our most destructive cultural traits as a species.

i like the passing line in the film KPAX where the kevin spacey character describes a society where people don't raise their own children. i think something as outrageous and simple as that may be the only way we can finally mature as a species.

 

[Bardeaux]

Forgive me for not reviewing the entirety of this thread before responding. I'm sure plenty of great points have already been made, and some that I might want to respond to later, and some that I will probably repeat here.

Society, to me, is simply the structure of all interpersonal relationships. There is a global society, with people of all nations, religions, races, genders, ideologies, professions, classes, etc interacting with one another and to some degree depending on one another. They interact with each other through economics, through spirituality, through government, through common interests and through simple communication. There are also smaller representations of society at large. There are nations that hold national identities, still with people of different classes, races, religions, genders, interests, professions, etc. There are regional level societies, local level societies, all the way down to the familial level. These are all examples of groups of people sharing interpersonal and inter-dependable relationships with a larger group.

I think there are a lot of unnecessary divisions in society. There are class divisions, racial divisions, gender divisions, ideological divisions, regional and national divisions, religious divisions. These are all barriers that prevent society at large from realizing the potential unity and practical usefulness of an open, egalitarian and free society at large. There can never be peace, universal access to knowledge and understanding, free movement of people and ideas, equitable distribution of resources or an end to bigotry, poverty or ignorance until these boundaries are erased at the global level.

The practical application of this, however.......