When I was at University, I used to get drawn into what I now regard as a simplistic argument. Disciples of various gurus argued that, if individuals change themselves, then the relationships between them change, therefore society changes, whereas various political activists argued that changing society changes its members, at least over a generation or two. It took me a long time to realize that maybe both lines of reasoning are valid, with some reservations. If asked how society can be changed for the better, it is inadequate to reply, "
If enough individuals change themselves first..." That would be like a careers adviser saying, "Yes,
if enough people buy and read poetry, then you will be able to earn a living as a full-time poet..." But there is nothing to prevent some individuals from both working on themselves and working with others to change society.
Both Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation and Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic Institute address social interactions and individual psychologies. Regarding the Institute:
"'...you've got the beginnings of a knowledge which reveals the true structure of society and the processes that make it. Given that knowledge, man could in time build his own world order the way he desired it..."
"'Dad's work was mostly in mass-action psych... but he has plenty of associates trying to understand the individual human being as a functioning mechanism. A lot's been learned since Freud...'" (IX, p. 155)
We need such knowledge but the world is currently far too divided to work towards it. And, in the Psychotechnic History, the Institute is soon to be overwhelmed by social complexity.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
You wrote in your first paragraph:"But there is nothing to prevent individuals from both working on themselves and working with others to change society." You overlooked how such individuals and groups will not agree on what changes will be desirable for both themselves and what they would advocate for the world at large. There will be competition for achieving contending or opposing goals.
And I believe that kind of competition will be good--everything would be forced out into the public, to be mercilessly scrutinized from all angles and POVs. That would help to expose and weed out bad and undesirable means and ends.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment