Constructed or Deconstructed in the Face of Chaos? ... Society in the Social Imagination

All societies are constructions in the face of chaos. Could that be true? Hardly, given that any society is a group of people and much larger than a tribe. Really now, such a statement that "all societies are constructions in the face of chaos" presupposes society; especially, if they are recognizing chaos and the need for change of behavior or reorganization... they must have been previously organized and stable.

You see, if a society is facing chaos, then before that face off... they were a stable society. How else could they realize the need to construct a stable society in the face of chaos?

The author of an interesting paper (see link below) suggests that this statement is true because of the constant possibility of anomic terror (anomic - socially disoriented; "we live in an age of rootless alienated people" alienated, disoriented and or unoriented - not having position or goal definitely set or ascertained) is actualized whenever the legitimations that obscure the precariousness are threatened or collapse.

But again, making such a statement "all societies are constructions in the face of chaos" they lose sight of society as existing thing prior to the feeling of being socially disoriented... I am saying that experience can only happen if the feeling prior to disorientation was one of orientation, contentment and or social harmony.

Now, I realize that man's basic desire for constructing society has a lot to do with the importance of that fundamental trait of the natural attitude which Alfred Schutz calls “fundamental anxiety”: “the weight of living, that secret melancholy of the knowledge that we all must die, that everything is so difficult and in all likelihood so futile” (Musil 1972: 713).  

Moreover, and even more profound is man's desire to be alive and his need to live socially, right from the beginning. For without others in our midst, what would we be and could we even understand what it means to be human let alone a person in need of society?

What the author misses in his/her pursuit to deconstruct society in order to prove that chaos constructs it... is that there is 'society' from the beginning and one should ask who was that first (prime mover according to Aristotle) social organizer and how did he/she come to be or came about is anyone's guess; but as you, my readers know, it was an act of God. 

But, for this blog, we want to explore how chaos comes about and how it deconstructs society. To begin, let us look at any activity that one performs relative to and or distinct from others. When observations of others' behaviors do not 'match', made possible through the encounter with another tribe or society, the outcome can be either helpful or destructive.  

What happens then can be the beginning of the end... such an encounter can become the first block to be pulled out from under the foundation of that society... (this is why I disagree with participant observer ethnographic method). And, it can be very destructive if a certain society is driven by the fundamental anxiety.

You see, any society or group wants to live and live abundantly. Yet it cannot live knowing there exists a vast number of impossibilities for them to work out or get through in the place they are. We all survive better thinking/knowing that all things are possible... even if we just imagine that to be true. 

Society cannot live and certainly not survive knowing that a large number uncertainties exist for them in the place where they are. If that kind of information gets in (an error upload so to speak) what sets in next is chaos ...first as a disenchanted vision of the world it has constructed. 

For simple groups, there is very little for them to lean on when this happens... they either move on with new information introduced or even forced on them or they adopt it slowly over time. 

For western civilization... well, that is obvious. We have been witness to it....and its happened over time indeed. Its the rise of the scientific perspective. 

Today, we in the west and even worldwide (those adopted western views) tend to hold science up as if it exists outside of man... waiting to be praised and we ready to be saved by it with the hopes of squashing the fundamental anxiety to death.

Again, chaos is the de-constructor more than the constructor of society. Sometimes is hits us like a tidal wave and other times it creeps in like a virus... it sets up a world that controls what was considered “normalcy” by sanctioning any other possibilities. In this way the fragility of the social consciousness appears to slip into a pandemic stupor. The crisis glimpsed on the horizon has finally come to pass and panic steps in.

Our civilization is a template of that... "if left unchecked, it will become madness and or dreaded chaos"...Society, then has no choice but to reconstruct the given realization and face the abandonment of what was, the point of view of the given social world, the “inessential” world (as we lead ourselves to believe), and make new visions possible. 

While that maybe so, what about the transition process and what new vision? Whose vision? 

The society that tends to fall is the one that never was established on solid ground... and one that believes man in not inherently evil and the foolish idea that we can live forever in a fallen world. Otherwise, how would/could chaos creep in...?

Society reconstructs in the face of chaos... keep in mind that what seems new is not always 'new'... there is nothing new under the sun ~ Ecclesiastes 1:9 

*ONLINE SOURCE ~ https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228546992.pdf

The Hero in the Social Imagination... Revisited!

 

 

According to Max Weber, social scientists should use concepts called ideal-types, a sort of measuring stick that captures the most rational and most essential components of any social thing. Ideal-types are never found in their pure form in real life. But they serve us in real life. How? Because, they often appear in the form of ‘hero’ in the extreme or even in the every day. This person is the overcomer, the rescuer, the hope giver, and or the one who rises above given circumstances as an demonstration for all to rise above.

Interestingly, ideal-types also allow for the use of verstehen, or the interpretive understanding of the subjective motivations’ individuals attach to their actions. In his essay, “Basic Sociological Terms,” Weber uses verstehen (that which drives the individual) to understand different types of social action. Certainly, money drives people, the lure of success, wealth and or prosperity. But that is not the true underlying drive. Which we will reveal a bit later.

Reflecting again on Max Weber, we are directed to consider what people accept as legitimate rules; not just any but rules for all to use having minimal coercion without the constant use or threat of force.  That is only possible if there is meaning for all in the use of the rules. But in saying that, we realize that due to the fallen ‘entropic’ condition of this world, equality set in rules can be neglected or corrupted. 

Why is equality so difficult to achieve. Max Weber like many other sociologists observed that among individuals in any defined or undefined group there exists those that take charge and those that follow because of the meaning they get from embracing those roles. The meaning spoke of is learned in a place over time through interaction among individuals in that place. But meaning is not to be learned in the way that reading or writing or math is. 

Meaning is learned differently because its connected to place on a deep and personal level for the one as part of a group in a place as well as for the group in that same place.

Weber, ideal-types rose out of that kind of place. The ideal was derived three forms of domination. The first type is charismatic domination, or power based on the exceptional qualities of an individual, such as his or her heroism or sanctity. The second type of legitimate domination is traditional domination, or power that is justified by a belief in long-standing customs in a place that work positively for the group in that place. 

Most areas of modern social life exhibit the third form of domination which is called rational because it has been made a ‘legal’ domination, or authority based on rules. Now, rational as in legal domination is based on the perceived legality or acceptability of rules and laws that outline appropriate courses of action. To put it simply, it is when we follow rules because we believe in the supposed fairness and fair execution thereof, regardless of who is giving us the order.

That sounds like only those who have position and power to make rules get to dominate or call the shots. But that is not true. Social reality is a give and take reality, an agreement reality. Domination or dominating individuals are empowered by those who subordinate to them and it is a choice. Weber observed people freely choosing and those choices were based on the meaning they held to the individual in the group, including themselves as a member and the group itself. 

You see, both kinds of social dynamics have meaning for the individual and group in which they belong. Remember, these social dynamics are learned because they are essential. They have meaning ‘sustenance’ that is abstract or even irrational to some outside of the group but to those within the social dynamics are simply ‘at work’, ‘rationally’ doing what they do and must do. 

Where does this leave us in context of the 'Hero' in the Social Imagination? Well, its interesting how that entity works in the social dynamics wherein subordination and domination are at work overcoming that which drives us the most.

The hero is the overcomer, the one who rises above and this is not because the hero is determined to be a hero. In fact, the greater hero is not known unto him/herself as a hero nor to others until they are in the act of being one. 

 

Today's hero is an exhibitionist, he/she is the one who seeks to survive a process as a learning experience. In this sense, the survivor hero is simply the one who makes it through. There is no greater or just cause. 

 

Today's hero is the 'lone' survivor as if no one else ever struggles or suffers and this is usually seen in a person who survives a bully encounter, an illness or accident or some malady. Not that the heroes of old didn't struggle with overcoming this world as it is... they did; but, they did it not only for themselves but for others.

 

The noble hero of old had a special calling, a just cause that was to save all of humanity. He/she was called out as someone greater than he/she is to do something greater than he/she is. What is interesting but rather sad is that today's hero is not the noble hero of old... the one with a just cause. Today's hero is selfish... self seeking praise, accolades and entitlement.

 

The hero of old had meaning for everyone in his/her group. The real hero or the true hero is always the one who makes it through not only for him/herself but for everyone in their group... Moreover, the greatest hero of old, of all time, had and still has meaning for all people everywhere.

 

The Monkey Mentality in the Social Imagination...

Why is that chimp still hanging around? Scientifically speaking, groups of them are still evolving, right? Or, is it because politicians and the like would prefer you to be a chimp under their control? 

Oh, how identity politics plays into the concept of evolved man... isn't that why another old white man is likely to be crowned the pres?

First things first: A “human” is anyone who belongs to the genus Homo (Latin for “man”). Scientists still don’t know exactly when or how the first humans evolved, but they’ve identified a few of the oldest ones. The color of the first 'human' was dark skinned an that entity living 2.4 million years ago. So, does that mean or should mean that man as an evolved human is now lighter in color? It seems for some that fits to the evolutionary narrative... or has to.

How does identity politics work for you and the so called evolved man of color?  It works like this... researchers have found evidence of an unknown “superarchaic” group that separated from other humans in Africa around two million years ago. These superarchaic humans mated with the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans, according to a paper published in Science Advances in February 2020. This marks the earliest known instance of human groups mating with each other—something we know happened a lot more later on.

That means that the early man of color made choices to mate with individuals (those of obvious higher evolutionary stages) in order to advance in evolutionary terms... an innate function uncontrolled by man but controlled by his natural propensity to evolve.  

Notice, how the words 'scientists and researchers' are used to shape your political identity. Its not enough to make you agree with evolution but you are supposed to think that scientists and researchers are outside of that evolutionary process... somehow above it all as objectives dictators of your very nature. 

SCIENCE... Mmm, aren't scientists then some kind of evolved chimps? Why would you trust another chimp (just because they think they are the evolved ones) to DICTATE your life by telling you who you are and are not ...'as in identity politics'. Guess, that would explain why some are still hanging around.

Wouldn't you rather evolve on your own? Who knows what you could become, right? That is what I call FREEDOM; free to become what God intended, not man in his chimp terms; after all, what kind of science is that?

Any person of color should and I am sure would agree that the only truth is in agreement reality with the Creator which is that God made all people everywhere and of every color. And, yes... He made chimps too... to be chimps; not to become a man. God created man in His image! Look up, for the Kingdom is at hand. Remember this about political identity ..."So when all these things begin to happen, stand and look up, for your salvation is near!” ~ Luke 21:28.

 

 

 *https://www.history.com/news/humans-evolution-neanderthals-denisovans

Rules for Radicals in the Social Imagination...

 

Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' has various themes. Among them are the use of symbol construction to strengthen the unity within an organization. Alinsky drew on loyalty to a particular church or religious affiliation to create a structured organization with which to operate, the reason being that symbols by which communities could identify themselves created structured organizations that were easier to mobilize in implementing direct action. Once the community was united behind a common symbol, Alinsky would find a common enemy for the community to be united against.

Alinsky would find an external antagonist to turn into a "common enemy" for the community within which he was operating. Often, this would be a local politician or agency that had some involvement with activity concerning the community. Once the enemy was established, the community would come together in opposition of it. This management of conflict heightened awareness within the community as to the similarities its members shared as well as what differentiated them from those outside of their organization. The use of conflict also allowed for the goal of the group to be clearly defined. With an established external antagonist, the community's goal would be to defeat that enemy.

Symbol construction helped to promote structured organization, which allowed for nonviolent conflict through another element in Alinsky's teaching, direct action. Direct action created conflict situations that further established the unity of the community and promoted the accomplishment of achieving the community's goal of defeating their common enemy. It also brought issues the community was battling to the public eye. Alinsky encouraged over-the-top public demonstrations throughout Rules for Radicals that could not be ignored, and these tactics enabled his organization to progress their goals faster than through normal bureaucratic processes.

Lastly, the main theme throughout Rules for Radicals and Alinsky's work was empowerment of the poor. Alinsky used symbol construction and nonviolent conflict to create a structured organization with a clearly defined goal that could take direct action against a common enemy. At this point, Alinsky would withdraw from the organization to allow their progress to be powered by the community itself. This empowered the organizations to create change.

All of the above is cut and paste from Wikipedia. Sure, that's not always a respected academic source but for the most part... everything you just read above is exactly what the Rules for Radicals was all about and still is. 

Alinsky's mistake, like most pro-communists, is that the poor, at least in America, are yet better off than most other truly poor places in the world. The poor in America, the United States, exist largely due to abuses that people with dependency personalities (namely pre-disposed to and or raised in addiction) bring on themselves and not because decent hard-working (black, asian, white and hispanic) Americans have an advantage over them other than NOT being addicted to substances, afflicted by a dysfunctional family and or engaged in criminal activity due to a generational tendency toward deviate behaviors. 

The number of poor in America is still relatively low...38 million in 2018 out of 330+million total population. The percentage of poor in the US is around 11.5% today. What's more, the official poverty rate in 2019 was 10.5 percent, down 1.3 percentage points from 11.8 percent in 2018. This is the fifth consecutive annual decline in poverty.

Now, thanks to the radical agenda known as cv one niner, that will certainly change; there are few better means to radicalize people than by lockdown. Nonetheless, the 'poor' in American remains very low; and thus, as a potential radical group the poor are reluctant toward radicalization. Alinksy saw that as a strange paralysis that could be overcome by externally steered provocation and or effective internal propaganda...and or both.

In this regard, why do we observe social unrest in the US? Is it due to huge disparity or racism? No. Is it because of the newest threat to democracy and liberty (cv 19)? Yeah, but moreover... its due to the specter of communism that still roams the earth.  

What's the method of engineering communism?Firstly, it is engineered to supposedly work for the elites, not the masses that are led to believe in it.  The ruling elites create the crisis which requires their solution but the average person is never told that the crisis was created... the crisis always advances control over man 'masses'... destroying free thought, freedom of movement and so on... creating a prison system for everyone but them. 

Hence, anyone telling the truth is banned and censored or called - SCIENCE deniers... You see, according to them their socio-political/economic agenda (global world order) cannot be trumped by anyone or anything… and only their science is the ‘right’ science. What drives such people to attempt to control the world and other people? The fundamental anxiety drives them as it does everyone... the fear of death. Its not about saving the world or the earth for future generations; its about saving it for them once they figure out how to live forever.