quote:But why is it more important that my nation be a great nation than that Albania be a great nation?
Give me some ethical grounds, give me some philosophical justification.
You don't want ethical grounds for nationalism and patriotism, you someone to justify greed and isolationism, which you are attributing to nationalism and patriotism.
You don't want people to tell you how nationalism is healthy and ethical because it is an attitude that places value on the social unit and its ability to withstand hard times, because you equate nationalism to those who behave like no other nation matters.
You don't want people to tell you how patriotism is healthy and ethical because it causes people to take an active part in preserving the integrity of the social structure they belong to, because you equate patriotism to those who have been convinced that the whole of the Mid-East and all of Islam is nothing but a threat and breeding grounds for hostile terrorists.
The entire flaw with your argument is that you are asking us to change our view of the ideas to what you have twisted them to first, and then attempt to justify them to you. You're not really asking a question, you're making a statement, and that statement is that you believe that "nationalism" and "patriotism" are ideals that have been perverted. You believe that continuing to promote these perversions is nothing but damaging to the US as a nation and the world in general. You want to ask everyone who looks at these words without the perversions attached to re-examine their use in the modern-day world, and to rebel against them as you have resigned yourself to.
I can't say that I totally disagree with your views on the twisting of the words, Rabbit, but I'm rather appalled at the way you are going about asking others to examine them. The good news is that my opinion doesn't matter much in the long run, so you don't have much to worry about as far as retaining your integrity.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, You are wrong. I stated my original hypothesis in a deliberately confrontationaly way in order to provoke debate. In the US, patrotism is commonly seen as a necessary virtue, I wanted to challenge that idea not in a rhetorical sense but in order to provoke thought on the issue. I was not trying to twist the debate. I do want an answer to the question.
I think all of us feel more strongly about the people close to us than we do about the people far away from us. Is that ethical or do we need to somehow overcome this tendency?
Marbo, You present a very intriguing idea. The idea that by identifying ourselves with a group, such as a nation, we are more able to behave altruistically within that group. Groups effectively expand the self. We generally don't take actions that hurt our families because we see them as an extension of ourselves. Certainly patrotism has that effect. Because of it, we see millions of people as ourselves and we are more willing to behave ethically towards them.
Unfortunately, loyalty to country or any group can often be used to defend highly immoral behavior toward anyone outside the group. The teenage clique is a classic example of this. I see the same thing to lesser degree in families. I've seen parents do highly anti-social things and justify it by saying they are protecting their children. Certainly patriotism can lead us to justify unethical behavior. Take a look at modern day Israel or WW II germany to see what I mean.
So how do we define and control Patriotism in such a way that it expands the self without allowing it to desensitize us to immoral treatment of those beyond the group. Is it possible to declaw Patriotism or does it need to be replaced with a new concept?
[ October 07, 2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a natural outgrowth, Rabbit. Love without action is empty. You can only help so many people and so deep. People love their children because they have generally invested tremendous time and resources in being responsible for them. In the same way, you have more time and money invested in your country than any other, it's a natural outgrowth.
You can't love all countries equally anymore than you can love all people equally. To do that would take infinite resources, especially time. (note that God, being Ominpotent,Omniscient, and Omnipresent, presumably achieves this state).
[ October 07, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So TAK what you are saying is that human beings are incapable of ethical behavior on any large scale. We are naturally selfish and can only learn to be unselfish to those we love.
I won't accept that.
[ October 08, 2003, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I believe you are simplifying TaK's position some. He says we are finite beings and some selfishness is inevitable.
My belief, supported by personal experience as well as sociological research, is that selfishness and altruism compete, within societies and individuals. There has been lots of fascinating research lately in psychology, sociology, and evolutionary game theory concerning this struggle between these mindsets. Religion, law and philosopy grapple with these issues as well. Altruism is a comparitively late development both in evolutionary genetics and in societies in general, though of course it should be encouraged.
I salute you for your principled stands and consciousness-raising, yet I feel you are losing sight of the truly important goal that everyone should strive towards: Mastery of Trivia. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also a true believer in sociological in-groups and out-groups as key factors in both individual and mob psychology. I have seen them in my own behavior patterns and in behavior of many other alledgedly intelligent people. It affects everything from schoolyard bullies and cliques, behavior towards the "new guy" at school, church, small towns, work or other groups, economics, and so forth all the way up to international relations and WAR. I think it is hardwired into the human brain. At heart, humans want to belong to a tribe. Larger city states grew from these impulses, as did nationalism and true nations in the last 500 years. Yet sadly, people still seem to need out-groups to hate, or at minimum groups to feel indifference towards. This makes the final leap to altrustic behavior concerning the entire human race difficult, though I think it is historically inevitable. Unless God says,"OK, everyone out of the pool, it's closing time." Then all bets are off.
posted
It says that you are a perfectionist, Icarus. Or possibly a foreign agitator. Hope the kids are doing better.
I just thought of the perfect example of in-groups and out-groups: the behavior of this very forum towards newbies, and also the cliques and factions that have formed here.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Linguistic and semiotic theory also support my contention that in-group/out-group dynamics are crucial prerquisites for understanding human behavior towards others. Many (most?) primitive tribes have words for tribe members that essentially translate into "human being." People outside the tribe are often literally not seen as human. For modern english examples, look at the huge vocabulary that has evolved to decribe groups and hiearchies within groups. "I am out of the loop." "You sand-bagged me, Bob!" "I was blind-sided." "Are you always such a back-stabber?" "He's a whistle-blower! We have to stop his leaks to the press before he ruins us all!" "Welcome to the forum, newbie. Now get back in your box." "Another fraternity hazing got out of hand this week. College officials had no comment." "Have you been initiated yet? Stooled to the rouge? Burninated? Eaten by Slash?" "He's a goodfella, one of us." "Once the mob makes you, gives you a button, there's only one way out:feet-first." a made guy. . .omerta. . . the new guy. . . rookie. . . plebe. . . fresh meat. . . rite of passage. . ."jumping" into a gang. . . a disgruntled employee. . .a company man. . brown-noser. . teachers's pet. . . racist. . . white supremiscist. . . feminist. . .cops' "blue wall" of silence. . . a zillion racist or derogatory slang words I cannot post. . . paying your dues. . . making your bones. . .
posted
Rabbit, you are confusing actions resulting from something with that thing itself. Every idea, down to the idea of being nice to animals, has produced evil. Simply because someone killed another over animal rights does not make animal rights a bad idea to be replaced with another. Patriotism doesn't need to be "declawed," it had no claws in the first place. It is impossible to formulate any idea that will not result in evil if that idea is used as your sole justification for action. This includes, utilitarianism, which you imply is the best ethical standard. When Stalin wiped out the kulaks, he justified it by invoking the "greatest good for the greatest number;" the economic prosperity his 5 year plan was supposed to bring being more important than the short term suffering it caused. His loyalty to the Communist utopia overcame the common sense idea that mass murder is wrong. Note that one of the ideas of Communism was spreading out for the benefit of all the world. The idea of trying to help all of the human race ended up hurting a good chunk of it.
None of this shows that being nice to animals, utiltiarianism, communism, helping all the world, or, for that matter, patriotism, are wrong. It simply goes to show that we need to be careful not to let any idea dominate our actions. Morality will always be ad hoc. No matter how many games ethicists play, they will never come up with an algorithm for good (input these ideas, output good behavior). This is what makes Card's books so good: They bring up ethical dilemmas where there are no easy answers.
Granted, some ideas have problems. But a notion like "patriotism" is so vague and nebulous that it is hard to pin down. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I think a good number of people when they say that Americans should show patriotism to their country, would also say that people of other nations should be patriotic also. In the end, if every nation is built up, the world is built up also. I believe that the world is helped a agreat deal if the Kurds and Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq are convinced to think of themselves as Iraqis, just like I believe our country is helped if all the various groups think of themselves as Americans.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Selfishness is genetic, embrace it don't fight it. I sincerely doubt anyone in this thread will value the life of a stranger as much as they value their own.
In certain circumstances, patriotism is bad. By bad, I don't mean because it is selfish, but to the contrary, patriotism is bad because sometimes it does not serve the selfish goals of the individual.
Back in World War II, communist parties around the world asked workers not to fight because essentially workers are doing all the dying and the industrialists are making all the money. No matter which country wins, the workers are screwed. The correct cost-benefit analysis in such a situation would be for the workers to abstain from fighting. Nationalism, in that instance, is stupid.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
can anything said to be morally justified? this whole thread is built upon the assumption that there is some sort of universal morality to which we are all subject, which as far as i'm concerned is a much more relevant issue of discussion that the specific morality of nationalism. Obviously this is not an issue for those of you who are religious, because if we were created of course we have a debt to our creator (although even that could be deconstructed), but for us agnostics its not so simple. What is the end goal of morality if not to please God? the greatest good for the greatest number? ok, but why.
i think what it all comes down to is people wanting to feel good about themselves. some people make themselves feel good by doing what they've been taught is the upstanding, moral thing to do. some people make themselves feel good about themselves by gaining power and convincing themselves that they're better than everyone else. some people do it by having kids who love them and in whom they take pride. in the end though, 'morality' is just one of many methods of making yourself feel like you're special; like your life is important and meaningful and significant.
i'm not saying we should abandon all law and go killing people in the streets, simply that discussions of morality as though it's something solid and permanent like the laws of logic or something is futile. We do what we've been taught to do, these things make us feel good about ourselves because we've been conditioned to believe that when we do these things good things happen to us. if you want to argue about how nationalism can benefit or injure the GDP of a given nation, or how it can influence wars or how meaningful people see their lives as fine, but morality? these things have no answers because they don't really exist.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Patriotism? I am a fairly selfish person, so I will support whichever social entity or entities I am in as much as both benefits me and is morally neutral, or good but not required. If the entities are generally positive, I will be more inclined to accept a failing a little bit more than I would a failing by an entity unknown to me. (I say entity because while patriotism is concerned with nations, cultures are often just as involved in affairs local to any home I may be in. Also, cities and states in many countries are also players, as well as other artificial boundaries/organizations. Some form of loyalty is found in many people for all sizes of geography.) The more an entity benefits me in some way, the more likely I will be to not leave for what might be a better one. Or at least, any place I consider moving to will have to demonstrate that it can be of greater benefit than I would otherwise need. Not all of these benefits can be directly affected by policies any entities may adopt, although many can.
Nor are all of these benefits direct. I may not need public elementary schools, nor even want them. (Education might be good, but most public schools, especially elementary, are not worth my taxes.) I cannot avoid paying for them without giving up other, more valuable benefits. So as long as they are approximately equally taking my money, I would rather have a good system where I live. I value education of all children, and while I would rather not be forced to pay, my money might as well be working more efficiently. If I have kids of my own, obviously the education system goes up, but then of course I could be said to be directly benefiting from it. If there was a school system somewhere that was of exceptional quality, all things being equal it might be worth it to me (even childless) to move there even if the cost was a decent amount higher. If a working voucher system was set up somewhere, that would also be worth support.
Now that was an example of a local entity, in the US (or at least Kentucky) the responsibility of the city or county, with some form of state oversight. Point being, I am not all that loyal to a small area. The only thing that one town cannot make some effort (and likely succeed if competent, committed people are in charge of it) is people. Acquaintances are nice, but new ones can be made and old ones visited. Close friends are more important, and an incentive to stay nearer, but even distance can be bridged in many ways. A spouse or kids you take with you, of course, although if they do not want to move then perhaps you will not want to either. Parents, grandparents, and other relatives are various factors too, though the move might lessen the distance as well. In summary, the only real reason to have loyalty to one's residence, be it town, state, or nation, is the important people in your life. Even then, life sometimes forces your hand in one way or another.
Actually, I suppose there are a few incentives in one place that might not ever be availabe in the next. Special facilities and stadiums can be built anywhere, but economics usually dictates at least a general area. Weather is more variable, but might be important to someone with bad allergies. If you enjoy surfing you will want to be able to drive to the beach for the weekend even if you do not live right on the coast. Still, especially for those who do not have serious medical/quality of life issues, most of these are not going to be as important day to day as most benefits any motivated entity of appropriate size can provide. Although I am lucky to have my health, and while I enjoy the beach I am fine driving or flying to it every once in a while.
So I have no intrinsic patriotism to pretty much anything defined by geographical bounds. Also, the less choice I have in being part of a (city, state, nation, society, etc.) the less I will care for it. I know some people do, and I do not really understand why. Yes, America has quite a few freedoms guaranteed by law. Probably had a few more before 9/11, but still in the top 10%, and maybe even the best depending on your priorities. But there is no reason it has to remain so. It probably will, and even if it restricts more freedoms once granted the process will likely be slow. But even if it keeps its current level of liberty forever, is there anyone who believes that no other nation can ever be even more free? If you value freedom above all else, why not move to that nation if it arises? If you value a working social safety net, move to whichever country you feel has the best one, or to some nation not now known for that, if it fixes the various problems (or even a problem, without adding any new ones) of the current major countries in that ranking?
Yes, you might not want to leave those you know. Nothing wrong with that, probably quite a bit right. But I do not really think that is patriotism. Friends sometimes fall away, through no one's fault or both people's. Relatives pass away, or move out or away themselves. (Does that sound as morbid as I think?) Most people have connections to others, but they can break... or stretch.
Okay, I hope this makes as much sense when I get a bit of sleep as it does now. I doubt I will be that lucky.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "morally justified" do you mean shown to be not wrong, or shown to be good, or shown to be necessary? Or something else?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's probably the social dynamicist in me that makes me feel more comfortable talking about this, like Morbo, in terms of in-group/out-groups. I think that, push comes to shove, that's really what we're talking about here.
This distinction operates on pretty much any level you can think of, from nation states down to the level of the individual. Focusing on the individual, on the world divided into Me-Not Me, makes this a very simple question. From a disinterested standpoint, is there any ethical justification for putting your interests before that of anyone else?
Up till now, the discussion has been focused on the selfishness inherent in in-group thinking. I agree with the people believe that some level of this is unavoidable as long as human beings are not perfect. I also agree with Rabbit when she says that this is not a moral or ethically valid justification for this behavior.
However, I still think that there can be valid ethical justifications for forming an in-group. When we talk about selfsihness, we're focusing on what someone takes. Were existence a zero-sum game, this would be the end of it. If we end the disucssion here, we're ignoring the fact that people also have a productive nature, that they add back to the pool of resources that are being drawn from.
While "To all according to their needs" is a wonderful dictum for a perfect world, the sad fact is that we don't yet live in this world. As it is, we're still dealing with the reality of limited resources and of a situation where allocating resources to one place or group or person has better results than allocating the same resources somewhere else. That's the basis of utilitarianism: "The greatest good for the greatest number."
It would be foolish to assume that this is the primary motivation for in-grouping, but, in utilitarianism, motivation is unimportant. Results are all that matters.
Here's an example that hopefully makes this sound less heartless than merely stating it does. Mr. X is some sort of social volunteer. He has two courses available to him. He can work as long as anyone needs his help or he can work to help people, but also, selfishly see to his own needs, such as eating and sleeping. In the first instance, Mr. X has successfully transcended the in-group/out-group distinction and treats others as functionally equivilent to himself, and yet I'd argue that his overall positive impact is going to be less then in the second instance, where he still maintains a Me-Not Me orientation.
Taking this up to a national level, I'd like to postulate that the general population of the entire world is at a level of maturity much lower than the optimal. The only way to overcome this low level of maturity is for people to develop out of it. And the only way for people to develop out of it is for their to be sufficient resources for them to have an enriched environment for them to grow in. If I believe that America, for whatever reason, currently represents the best or one of the best opportunities for this growth, wouldn't it be ethical for me to 1) want to be a part of it and 2) allocate more resources to America, a la an in-group type situation?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a tangential note, I've been trying for a while to come up with a way of setting up an in-group that does not necessitate an out-group and this discussion made a bunch of ideas gel for me.
Is it possible to have a group where the benefits of group membership are primarily available only to people who are not focused on these benefits, but rather just on contributing to this group? Aynone can be a part of the group and maybe even benefit from it, but those who are really rewarded are those who aren't there for the reward or for the in-groupness. I don't know if this is possible and I have no idea if that even makes sense to someone who hasn't been on the long, strange journey of ideas I've been on recently, but I'd really like to think that it's possible and I hope that people here can help me figure out how.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a fantastic De Tocqueville quote about egoism, and how nationalism just falls back into egoism. Has anybody else read it? I can't remember where I saw it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Is it possible to have a group where the benefits of group membership are primarily available only to people who are not focused on these benefits, but rather just on contributing to this group?"
That would be called "Hatrack."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Sounds like a variation on a lot of religions, Christianity included. Anyone can get in, but your benefit is directly proportional to your participation and/or contributions towards others.
I would argue that life as a whole is like that.
Tom beat me to saying that it was Hatrack...
[ October 08, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another tangential point. I tihnk that there is a fundamental divide in how people view morality that strongly influences their conception of in-group/out-groups (somebody's got to come up with a better way of saying that). I'm not sure exactly how to term it. I'd like to say it's betweeen absolutism and relativism, but that opens up a whole can of worms that I think will just cloud the issue.
I'll use references instead. The fundamental principle that I try to live my life by(and constantly fail to live up to) is expressed by the Sanskrit Tat Tvam Asi: "Thou Art That". In the New Testament, Jesus makes this concept the most important when dealing with other people when he says that the second most important commandment, that supercedes all others, is "Love your neighbor as yourself". In the same vein, elsewhere he says, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
For me, empathy is the only true basis for morality. Reward and punishment, heaven and hell, or, as the Buddha puts it, fear and desire are the root of sin.
Such a view makes in-grouping at it's very and seldom best, a necessary evil, and most of the times just evil.
There is another way of looking at the world that divides people into groups, maybe into the good and the bad or the saved and the damned or Us and the gentiles. This is the thought that believes that you can justify doing bad things to other people. Such a view welcomes in-group/out-group thinking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not wrong, Rabbit, and I do not believe you. Like I said, though: you don't have to worry about it, because my opinion doesn't matter in the long run.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, Glad to know that you understand my intensions better than I do. Perhaps next time I can't decide what flavor of ice cream I want I'll call you. Until then, if you have nothing more to contribute to this discussion than to call me a liar and a hypocrit, please stay away.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's okay for you to be "provacative" in the conversation, but the minute someone calls you on the veracity of your claims, you demand that they stop the conversation? In other words, you don't really want others' opinions unless they jibe with your own? How nice.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, The veracity of the claims you called me on, was my honesty. That isn't an attack on my opinions, its an attack on my person. Such attacks have no place in a civilized debate.
[ October 08, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bowles is correct. Let me be! But at the same time, defend me from other nations trying to prevent me from being!
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are you always such a back-stabber," Leto II?
Thank you for illustrating my point about cliques and factions, Leto. You and Rabbit obviously have a backstory I know nothing about.
But from what you posted in this thread, you have behaved like a pissy jerk. You have called Rabbit a liar at least 4 times by my count, and said you were "appalled" that she started this thread. Fairly rude and uncalled for, certainly does nothing to elevate the discussion, rather its opposite.
But we agree on one thing.
quote: The good news is that my opinion doesn't matter much in the long run
because my opinion doesn't matter in the long run.
Leto II. Certainly the way you're behaving on this thread doesn't show you care about Rabbit's opinion, so why should we care about yours? Not that you've really expressed a coherent on-topic opinion. Right now you are only good as an object lesson in irrational anger, so why don't you sod off?Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Leto and I don't have a backstory that explains his behavior, at least not one that I remember.
What I was really hoping for in starting this thread is that people would put forth some postulates on what constituted ethical behavior and then discuss in what ways patriotism either promoted or discouraged ethical behavior.
I have noticed that as humans we tend to have a double standard for ethical behavior. A high standard for within group ethics and low standard for between group ethics. This phenomenon is observed in everything from families, to high school cliques, to organized religions to nations. At their best, groups help people to learn and practice altruism, at their worst they offer a forum that justifies brutality.
We've had this discussion about organized religion repeatedly, I wanted to revisit the discussion in terms of nationalism/patriotism. As a whole, does the idea/feeling of patriotism inspire people to treat other human beings with dignity or is this idea/feeling more likely to serve as a justification for the marginalization of those outside our own countries?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have noticed that there are two directions that can theoretically lead to pure altruism. The one I consider to be more productive is the essentially individualistic--I as an individual have rights, and should attribute those rights to all others; forming into groups that favor members is counterproductive. But recently I have seen many science-fiction writers suggesting the opposite direction--altruism comes only by expanding the group circle larger and larger until it encompasses everyone.
I suppose it is possible that both of these ideas "work". Rabbit seems to be defending my preferred position (which strikes me as odd), but I'm not sure there is any easy logical or experimental way to demonstrate either.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's probably the social dynamicist in me that makes me feel more comfortable talking about this, like Morbo, in terms of in-group/out-groups.
Mr. Squicky. Yay! Mr. Squicky agrees with me somewhat. At least in the terms I used to frame my analysis. Now I feel like I'm a made guy who's made his bones and been jumped into a gang. *basks in the feeling of belonging in a group* Although I think looking back on last nights posts on the 1st page that I was using sociology as a distancing mechanism to make it all more impersonal. The more I analyzed group dynamics last night, the more depressed I became. By the time I got to the linguistic stuff, with primitive tribes' conception of tribal member=human/non-tribal member=non-human, and the staggering variety of group dynamic terms in English (I only scratched the surface), I was in an out-and-out funk. Luckily Annie chose that time to IM me and had me laughing in minutes. Thanks, Annie. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But recently I have seen many science-fiction writers suggesting the opposite direction--altruism comes only by expanding the group circle larger and larger until it encompasses everyone.
Maccabeus. This might be Heinlein's view, I'll have to think about it. Or your other option, or a third. The conflict between individualism and altruism is a major theme throughout RAH's work. I wonder how his views evolved during his career? I love RAH's work but have rarely tried to analyze it, perhaps because I've been reading him my entire life and have internalized much of his philosophy. This makes objectivity difficult.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I first noticed this while reading Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships (a sequel to HG Well's The Time Machine).
quote: "It's a little late," I conceded, "to be learning such deep lessons about the species with whom I have shared the planet for forty-odd years. But nevertheless, there it is. It seems to me now that if man is ever to achieve peace and stability--at least before he evolves into something new, like a Morlock--then the unity of the species will have to start at the bottom: by building on the finest foundation--the only foundation--the instinctive support of a man for his fellows."
I became aware of this because it seemed to me that the Time Traveler was going against everything Baxter had written so far, what with the multitude of human wars the Traveler had witnessed. And then I realized it was my interpretation that Baxter was going against, not his own writing; all he had done was portray the wars, not give an evaluation of their cause. It seems absurd to me that he could think this would solve, for instance, his war between the British and Germans (a modified WWI), when it was clearly the result of group loyalty for both parties--but the clarity is only in my mind, not his book.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the ideas have already been stated in this thread somewhat, I suspect that nationalism is on a larger scale the same thing as tribalism, or if you would in nature a wolf pack. I think you find tribes and family groups in the great apes too.
There are a finite numbe of resources in the world and being in a particular group or country means that everyone is co-operating to look after that country's best interest. I think the emotinal depth of patriotism comes from exactly the same evolutionary triggers as that of the ones that cause bonding between family members. To view an entire country as your "family" does require a higher level of sophicstication of thought. To view the world as your "family" requires the most sophistication of all, and the realities of the situation are that right now in the world things are too adversarial in competing over resources to raise most people's consciousness or visceral responses to that level.
posted
Morbo, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but even if I opened a vein and declared us to be blood brothers, it wouldn't bring you closer into a group here. Despite my humorous claim to the opposite that you enjoyed so much, I'm probably more of an outsider than you are. That's why I listen to Marilyn Manson.
----
Let's see, how to introduce this idea...I've got a theory that the answer to in-group/out-grouping lies somewhere in the individualistic/collectivistic dichotomoy of social structures. It seems to me that bthos sides of this divide have pieces to this puzzle.
In individualistic societies, like the United States, you get a host of problems based off of the concern with the individual. Individualists tends to be less empathetic, have much lower emotional intelligence, practice more self-deception, and objectify other people to a much greater extent than collectivists. The poster child for these sorts of problems is something that, in social science, is called the Fundamental Attribution Error. This describes the tendency of people to ignore situational factors in other people's behavior and conclude that people act the way they do almost exclusively because that's they way they are. I think that the basis for these problems is a fundamental lack of social connectedness.
Collectivist cultures, like Japan, don't show the FAE, in regards to people inside that culture. However, their regard for people outside their culture is much, much lower than in individualistic cultures, where the FAE acts for pretty much everyone but yourself. The average person in a collectivist culture shows around as much prejudice as an extremely prejudiced member of a individualist culture. They seem to pay for their social connectedness to their own group with increased blindness and hostility towards outsiders.
The key for me - and I don't know if I've done a good job of making this case or presenting enough of the evidence I'm working from - is to blend these two styles, so that the individualist/collectivist dynamic is less of a dichotomy and more in a mandalic relationship. Without the concept of the individual and his rights and the rule of law, I don't know that their can be enough tolerance for "weird" people to be visible. On the other hand, the isolated view of the self that typifies the individualist doesn't provide enough empathy, understanding, or trust for us to move beyond treating other people as objects and falling prey to the prisoner's dilemna. Only if we blend the two do we have a good chance of developing a more universally open culture.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, You haven't responded and that makes me think that you don't feel that my description answers your question. If this is true, I'm curious as to why you don't think that I presented an adequate - if very dry - ethical justification for nationalism? To me it's pretty standard ahisma debt-type thinking, which was good enough for Gandhi.
TAK and Tom, The big flaws with your examples for me is that the both structures you describe have a very strong in-group/out-group focus. I probably didn't convey what I'm talking about well enough.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well, Mr. Squicky, I was just trying to take a short cut and avoid the 3 methods you posted for newbies. Props for that post, I think it's the funniest on the entire forum.
Interesting ideas, but I'm just going to lurk on this thread. That group dynamics analysis I did the other night was very depressing, so I better steer clear of more. Your's and others' ideas are more thought out anyhoo.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, That's too bad. You were one of the people I was hoping would have perspectives on this that I hadn't run across before. Oh well, I guess this will suffer the same fate as every other serious thread on this forum that doesn't set in-groups against each other.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The big flaws with your examples for me is that the both structures you describe have a very strong in-group/out-group focus."
Squicky, I think in that case you worded your question incorrectly. What you're REALLY looking for is a group that doesn't care about its own existence, which can be quickly and easily defined as "groups that don't exist for long."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for so much the compliment, Mr. Squicky! Maybe in a few days I can be more analytical and detached about it all and post something meaningful.
In the meantime, has anybody heard of the simplifaction model from the 90's (I think) that breaks down all interactions between groups and/or individuals (from personal relationships to economics to union/management negotiating to international relations) into 7 or 8 categories, running the spectrum from active cooperation to conflict, fighting and war? Of course, all models simplify, but the best models highlight what's really important and cut out the extraneous non-essentials, allowing thought to focus on the key aspects of the system under scrutiny.
I was impressed with the ambition of this model, finding striking simularities between interpersonal relationships, diplomacy, and all other group dynamics. I cannot remember if it was economists, game theorists, sociologists or some other -ists that came up with the theory. All of those disciplines are converging anyway. The theory made something of a splash in the literature in the 90s but I can't remember any more details. If anyone knows what I'm referring to please post a reference, I doubt I could come up with one without an exhaustive internet search. But don't go to any trouble on my account.
posted
Tom, That's just it, I don't know if the type of group I'm talking about (an in-group without an out-group) is possible. It's a holy grail, but it remains to be seen whether it's only an ideal. However, I'm not willing to conclude from the get go that it's impossible.
Morbo, I'm not aware of the specific theory that you're talking about, but it sounds based of a lot of 90s game theory that I do know about. To be honest, I've never been all that captivated by anatomizing group relations, but I never turn down an opportunity to hear something from a different perspective. I'll see what I can find out about this.
Oh, as to the depression thing, the best way to deal with it that I've found is to give up the idea that things just shouldn't be this way. I think it's the helpless and despair that this engengers that really gets you down. People are ugly in a lot of ways, but they are beautiful too. Focusing on the goal, rather than on the problems and appreciating the good and bad is what I think keeps me sane.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Rabbit, I am taking a shot. But first: is a practical defense an ethical one?
In a practical sense you have the best chance of benefiting and/or hurting those who are closest to you. That means that if you want to do the most good you can you must take more care to cheer on and help and love those who are close to you than those who are far away from you. This is most naturally done if you actually do have more loyalty toward those those who are close to you than for those who are not close to you.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Squicky, Sorry I haven't responded. Its not a lack of interest but a lack of time.
I am still trying to obsorb you hypothesis. Would it be fair to summarize it by saying that in a patriotism, in an individualist society, promotes values more characteristic of collectivist society. So in essence, by having a patriotic individualist society we blend the ethical strengths of the two extremes.
Its an interesting hypothesis, I'm still trying to decide how much validity it has.
I'll write more when I have more time.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, The later stuff I said is pretty divorced from ethical reasons for nationalism and more just an exploration of some ideas that the little men inside me sent up.
If I had to take a stand on the way you phrased it ("nationalism represents the blending of individualism and collectivism") I'd have to say maybe. It really depends on what the character of the nationalism is. As it currently stands for many people, I think that the answer would be definitely be no.
However, I could envision a style of nationalism that could sort of be this way. In most of Western society, individuals generally don't adhere to groups out of concern for the others in the group. Rather, it is usually because of fear and insecurity and an attempt to escape from the responsibility that being an individual demands.
And yet, that is not the whole story. Certainly there are assosciations that we enter into for other reasons. In his book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam talks about social capital, of the worth of bonds of trust and affiliation that grow between people who are in certain types of groups together. I believe that these types of groups are much less likely to be oriented around a in-group/out-group distinction.
To expand on my view from before, I believe that a maturely developed individualist is better able to deal with strange things that upset the known order and is better able to deal with another as an individual instead of as a member of a group, but lacks a social connectedness and an orientation towards others, while the collectivist has this connectedness and orientation, but lacks the training and experience that makes it easy to handle "strange" things. Both sides bring important strengths and weaknesses to the table and I believe their characters to be extremely complementary.
The nationalism and in-group loyalty most prevelant in our culture is not mature, however. Those who cling most strongly to groups are usually the weaker members of our society. I believe that precisely because they were not in a collectivist orientated society, where social support is freely given and no man is an island onto themselves, they were unable to develop from a position of safety itno someone who can stand on their own in most matters, and instead try to grasp onto others for the strength that they believe they lack.
In philosophy and social science, there is a classic problem called the prisoner's dilmma. I don't want to go in depth explaining it. Instead I want to focus on one particular point, that, while in the short run, it is usually better to screw over the other person in this situation, in the long run, it is better the live in a world where people don't screw each other over. The key element is trust - a key element in the social capital I referenced above - either that or a Christ-like willness to suffer for the good of others.
I don't know if we can have this trust or especially that willingness to suffer without having some sort of in-group. I hope so, but even if we can, we'll need to develop to such a place, and I believe that the road may have to go through healthy in-grouping.
posted
I kept wanting to bring up a distinction that I think can be very important when trying to classify people or their actions and beliefs. That is, the difference between a genotype and a phenotype. I couldn't find any good place to fit it in, and I did enough shovingthings in where they'd didn't really fit anyway, so I guess I'll talk about it here.
Those two terms may sound familiar from genetics and they serve pretty much the same role in characterology. A genotype is an underlying condition that, when combined with environmental stimuli, results in the outward expression, or phenotype. The important thing to remember is that the same genotype can lead to extremely different phenotypes and that similar phenotypes can actually come from extremely different genotypes. For example, it's my belief that naive self-esteem and depression both spring from the same genotype of frustrated safety needs. In the other case, the expressed behavior of in-grouping can be motivated by completely different and even opposing genotypes.
When we talk about nationalism or just in-grouping in general, I think that it's important to acknowledge that people often have very different underlying reasons for their behavior, and that, depending on where it's coming from, certain behavior can either be a good thing or a bad thing.
Morbo, do me a favor, and bite me. Stop assuming there is some greater purpose behind me not buying Rabbit's lines. I'm not calling Rabbit a witch, I'm saying I don't believe what Rabbit is implying about the question asked. As for the "my opinion doesn't count" line: I've been personally told as much by certain "someones" around here who are a little more than the average poster, though a little less than Mr. Card himself. However, far be it from me to not take something mandated to me from my superiors here to heart. As far as I've been told, I have no right to opine, nor any right to gripe about it. That's just the way it is. Do stop trying to attribute other motives to what I say (or don't... after all, my opinion blah blah blah and all that).
Allow me to illuminate:
1. Rabbit, aren't you a Christian? If so, which denomination do you feel the most connection with?
2. Rabbit, are you married?
Now, let me warn you that the answers you give to both of those will be used to show why I feel that your attempt at an altruistic demonizing of both nationalism and patriotism is disingenuous, despite how much you may have convinced yourself that they are ethically and morally wrong. You may feel free to try and cover all of your bases as far as your faith and your marriage status, and since I am telling you why I asked, I expect you aren't going to complain that I'm leading the questions anywhere.
Little note for all the indignants: just because I do not believe someone does not mean I am calling them a liar. I truly believe that Rabbit thinks she is being honest, but the part I don't believe is the attempt to demonize for the sake of altruism. If it really were altruism, Rabbit wouldn't need to demonize nationalism and patriotism—and calling something unethical and immoral is pretty much demonizing. `Taint right when Bush applies it to the attitudes of any nation he happens to disagree with, and `taint right when Rabbit applies it to any attitude she happens to disagree with.
Or, heck, maybe I'm just totally off my rocker, and am making things up from thin air.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:[leto II], You and Rabbit obviously have a backstory I know nothing about. But from what you posted in this thread, you have behaved like a pissy jerk. You have called Rabbit a liar at least 4 times by my count, and said you were "appalled" that she started this thread. Fairly rude and uncalled for, certainly does nothing to elevate the discussion, rather its opposite.
Me=Morbo=Rasputin
I was wrong about the backstory according to Rabbit. Perhaps pissy jerk is too harsh. A little rude maybe. It did seem like you were calling Rabbit a liar to her and to me. You have laid out a more nuanced position, if you were not calling her a liar, I apologize.
You did say you were apalled. I do apologize for telling you to sod off and for quoting your sarcastic statements that your own opinion doesn't matter. I'd like to see any opinions you post. Now I'll just go back to lurking in this thread, as I explained above I cannot remain detached enough. Anyway, rabbit can capably defend herself or not as she chooses. Rabbit is a she, right? I don't want to get *thwapped* like mac and Ashley did when i kept forgetting their sex. Morbo Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am appalled, Morbo, but that's neither here nor there. I think the current "proud to be an American?" thread is proof positive that Rabbit was aiming more at the twisted jingoism, and not at true patriotism or true nationalism. Jingoism is a bad thing, patriotism is not. Jingoism is harmful to society, nationalism is not. They are not the same things, and like I said, Rabbit is intentionally inferring that they are.
[ October 15, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Leto II ]
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
for your principled stands and consciousness-raising, yet I feel you are losing sight of the truly important goal that everyone should strive towards: Mastery of Trivia. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Hope the kids are doing better.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
