• Ø implies everything
    252
    I find myself going back and forth between the view that humans have, and will, across time assimilate(d), and the opposite; that we have, and will, individuate(d). Most of the media I've consumed seems to support the latter. There's talk about the hyper-individuality of the modern Westerner, caused by the internet providing swathes of diverse viewpoints and tons of content of which can shape a person in every which way. Furthermore, mainstream media make it seem like people are more politically polarized now than ever before.

    However, the modern age, partly due to the internet, has also provided us with a ton of education. The majority of people in the West seem to have been gathered under science and mathematics as their new religion (even if they barely understand it); contrast that to the past, when we were divided by a myriad of religions and denominations therein.

    And that political polarization? Is it a sign of more ideological diversity, or less? If everyone disagrees with each other, the weight of disagreement is lessened. If however, you have only a few groups of people who are in disagreement with each other, but in agreement internally, then disagreement is not only more rare (which makes people more sensitive to it), but also amplified by echo chambering and an us-versus-them mentality.

    Here is perhaps the scheme through which assimilation may occur:

    From ideological diversity comes both the need and means for answers. All that diversity gives rise to incredible synergies of thought that uncover things exceedingly more certain and uncontroversial. This process whittles down, at perhaps a decaying speed, the number of disagreements. Eventually, we are left with absolute truth of which we are assimilated under.

    Here is perhaps the scheme through which individuation may occur:

    Like a microcosm of the larger universe, the ideology of our species is entropized as more and more views, problems, events and people come into existence and are recorded, interpreted, reinterpreted, re-reinterpreted, etc. At every turn, people gain yet another reason to disagree.

    Here is perhaps the scheme through which we ultimately do not trend in either direction:

    See the scheme through which assimilation may occur. Once the number of disagreements are lessened, the divides between them are strengthened. The heightened potency of the disagreement eventually reaches the point of mutual destruction. In the vacuum of authority, diversity arises once again.

    What do you guys think? I am torn and find it a fascinating topic.

    EDIT at 21:05, UTC +0:

    I want to be more precise in formulating what I mean by a society individuating or assimilating.

    So, I introduce the quantity of general agreement, denoted .


    • Ask question 1. They can choose to not answer in case they do not possess an opinion.

    • Repeat process for .

    • Ask to scale how much they agree with the answer of to question 1. The strength of this agreement is denoted and valued as ; the first, second and third variable denoting the subject of agreement, the answerer and the enumeration of the question answered, respectively. If did not give an answer, then by definition.

    • Repeat process for .

    To get the general agreement of an entire society, first decide upon some large set of questions, spanning all kinds of topics and details therein, that are relevant to the society at that time. Then, enumerate each question, from 1 to q. Then, select a representative sample (size = s) of the society.

    Then, apply the above process to every pair of people in this sample. Record all the strengths of agreements. The general agreement of the society is then measured to be the following:

    .

    Now, let's denote the function from time step to general agreement as . How do you think the graph of would look for all of humanity across all time, had this kind of experiment been frequently carried out throughout history? What would be the shape? Would it be non-monotonic? Would it display abrupt changes corresponding to different events/changes in history? Would it have been, in total, increasing (assimilation), decreasing (individuation), or neither? If neither, would there perhaps be a cyclicality?

    ___

    As an aside, I realize that performing the experiment would affect the opinions of the subjects. That is, there is some uncertainty here due to the measurement affecting the quantity. Furthermore, there would be inaccuracies introduced due to semantic misunderstandings as well.
    1. So, which is it? (3 votes)
        We are assimilating
          0%
        We are individuating
          0%
        Neither
        100%
  • Joshs
    5.8k


    Your starting point seems to be the autonomous individual
    subject, who decides from their own vantage of free will what to agree or disagree with. But aren’t most of our agreements and disagreements features of shared conventions and norms of thinking that bind us together within the communities that we are immersed in? Note that the political polarization you refer to pits one community against another, rather than isolated individuals. One conclusion we can perhaps reach is that individuation in never absolute. Even in our polarized times there is some basis for partial mutual understanding, given the multiple threads of economic and cultural interdependence among subgroups.
  • plaque flag
    2.7k


    It might be helpful to think of individuation as selective and creative assimilation.
  • Ø implies everything
    252
    I did not mean to imply that anyone is choosing what to agree and disagree with. It is true that the communities we are born in shape our thoughts to a great degree. This however, is not incompatible with the possibility of individuation. You are not just part of one group; you are a part of many, and this intersectionality gives rise to individuality even under an assignment of identity via group membership.

    As one is more and more subjected to information, it could be this individuality increases, given that one's response to it is not determined by the one group one belongs to, but instead, it is determined by the intersection of all the relevant groups, which is a lot of groups if one attempts to fully characterize a person through group membership. Furthermore, there may be external factors at the moment of information consumption, though of course, one can include this under the group identity framework; i.e. "S belongs to the group of people that are currently looking at a red car." At this point though, it just becomes silly in my opinion.

    I do not know what you mean by absolute individuation. Do you mean we are never fully unique? That there is always a non-empty set of people that share every trait (group membership) with us? I would say that is quite a radical claim.
  • Ø implies everything
    252
    As in, individuation is the process by which people choose or create groups? Thus, individuation is not a negation of assimilation, but rather the process by which the correspondences between people and groups change, the total degree of assimilation staying roughly static through this?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Your starting point seems to be the autonomous individual
    subject, who decides from their own vantage of free will what to agree or disagree with. But aren’t most of our agreements and disagreements features of shared conventions and norms of thinking that bind us together within the communities that we are immersed in?
    Joshs

    Yes, to this. The OP seems to rely on a presumption of general rationality. To what extent there is any significant impact by real rationality any more is very debatable. Historically, rationality had the upper hand insofar as revolutionary empirical truths could ultimately be expected to win out over traditional myths (viz. heliocentrism over geocentricism). Since the advent of modernity, however, rationality has been degraded to the role of instrumentality.

    The assimilating vs individuating distinction is probably valid from a naturalistic standpoint, representing a polar-dyad of competing drives, both of which are operational both individually and collectively, with one or other dominating in a give phase. But modern power-structures have tended to both shatter and shackle the forces governing natural social evolution.
  • Ø implies everything
    252
    The OP seems to rely on a presumption of general rationality.Pantagruel

    See my comment in response to Joshs.

    I would say modern power-structures are no problem for this framing of a society's ideological development. Modern power-structures can be a force for assimilation and individuation in different situations, though I think the sum of their influence pushes us towards assimilation.

    It all comes down to the ideology in-question; some ideologies are beneficial to those in power, and others are not. Whenever you have a group of people assimilating under a problematic ideology, the powerful agents act as a force for individuation by fragmenting the group. However, those same powerful agents act as a force for assimilation when the ideology is beneficial to them. That is not to say that they necessarily want to maximize assimilation for any given ideology; sometimes keeping certain major divides is beneficial in so far that it distracts the people from what might be considered their real enemy.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    It all comes down to the ideology in-question; some ideologies are beneficial to those in power, and others are not. Whenever you have a group of people assimilating under a problematic ideology, the powerful agents act as a force for individuation by fragmenting the group. However, those same powerful agents act as a force for assimilation when the ideology is beneficial to them.Ø implies everything

    There is a tradition that equates "ideologies" with apologistic-rationalizations of the ruling classes, making them deceptive, more than anything else. Ricouer is a good example of this line of thought. Conversely the governing goals "from below," as it were, tend to be expressed in utopian-idealistic terms.
  • Ø implies everything
    252
    I agree. Was this meant as a counter, or just an addition to what I said? If the latter, do you disagree with my view or not?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Just an amplification really. Per my initial comment, I think of it more as an ongoing and cyclical dialectic.
  • Ø implies everything
    252
    Ah, I think I understand now.

    The assimilating vs individuating distinction is probably valid from a naturalistic standpoint, representing a polar-dyad of competing drives, both of which are operational both individually and collectively, with one or other dominating in a give phase. But modern power-structures have tended to both shatter and shackle the forces governing natural social evolution.Pantagruel

    I misunderstood this paragraph, mainly due to the last sentence, as saying the assimilation-individuation framework was flawed due to the existence of modern power-structures. But instead, you are saying that you lean more towards the view that we, across time, do not tend more towards assimilation or individuation, but if something is going to break the tie, it would be the modern power-structures.

    Am I getting you right?
  • plaque flag
    2.7k
    As in, individuation is the process by which people choose or create groups?Ø implies everything

    Yes. What is a self ? Persona, mask, costume, avatar. It looks to me like (among other things) a quilt of identifications, of belongings-to-groups. Even the genius, who has adopted a familiar enough role of self-creation, is creating pieces of selves for assimilation by consumers. So Nirvana (the band) sold 'grunge,' an attitude or pose that could be adopted by fans. Politics, religion, etc. The same idea. Piece together a 'self' in fear and trembling and ecstasy and restlessness and irony.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you referencing Jung's theory of individuation (which is generally a benign construction)? I don't think people are much different now to when I was young 40 years ago. They are still socialised into belief systems, belong to communities, and have interests and concerns. In many instances, how these are organised is different owing to technology.

    An older Australian Aboriginal activist here noted that people are no more bigoted today than they were 50 years ago, they are just better organised. It's much easier these days to find communities and subcultures than it used to be. I remember vividly community concern in the 1970's about the cult of individualism and the 'me generation'. I remember individualism being a concern again in the 1980's. My grandma told me that there was community concern about the cult of individualism in the 1920's.

    The persistence of community and ongoing interdependence amongst citizens continues.

    The majority of people in the West seem to have been gathered under science and mathematics as their new religion (even if they barely understand it)Ø implies everything

    Which may simply be people saying they prefer reason to superstition. Zeitgeist. Incomplete understanding is not unusual within communities. It's certainly true in religious communities, and it is true in political communities. Just because people share a belief system doesn't mean they understand it. Often it is about a preference to belong, which presents itself through various interrelationships, including kinship, friendship, locality, environment and education.

    This however, is not incompatible with the possibility of individuation. You are not just part of one group; you are a part of many, and this intersectionality gives rise to individuality even under an assignment of identity via group membership.Ø implies everything

    I am not sure what this implies.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I misunderstood this paragraph, mainly due to the last sentence, as saying the assimilation-individuation framework was flawed due to the existence of modern power-structures. But instead, you are saying that you lean more towards the view that we, across time, do not tend more towards assimilation or individuation, but if something is going to break the tie, it would be the modern power-structures.Ø implies everything

    I think that assimilation and individuation both represent natural mechanisms, which modern power structures are subverting.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    I believe that ideological conformity requires effort because evolution is a fundamental, essential feature, of the living organism. Intensified societal change makes conformity more difficult, and attempts at conformity become less successful. The only way that ideological conformity can persist is if the will to conform is cultivated. Traditionally, this was moral training, cultivating the desire to be good.
  • Ø implies everything
    252
    Yes.green flag

    I see. That is not what I am talking about however, as that is a phenomenon happening on the level of the individual.

    I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.Tom Storm

    Well, to both inform you and green flag, I have edited my OP. Individuation and assimilation are processes of which a society undergoes; not an individual. The individual partakes in either societal individuation or assimilation by either joining less populated or more populated ideologies. The former would increase the total amount of disagreement in the society, and the latter would decrease it.

    EDIT: There were some typos in my original formula. I have corrected them now, in case you got confused the first time.
  • Ø implies everything
    252


    In some cases, assimilation does require effort yes. However, in those cases, there is sometimes a lot of benefit for certain powerful agents in furthering assimilation. Thus, there are sometimes competing forces at play. So, even though one thinks assimilation in general requires effort, one could still also maintain that we are nonetheless ideologically assimilating. What do you think?
  • Ø implies everything
    252


    If I understand you correctly, you think that naturally, societies undergo a cyclical process of assimilation and individuation. However, modern power-structures are disturbing this natural polar-dyad, and now, societies affected by them are imbalanced and mostly trending in one direction, instead of cycling back and forth?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.