Why we sacrifice individuals in the name of culture/social institutions?

schopenhauer1

It is clear that by procreating, we are assenting to the perpetuation of economic and cultural institutions. This crosses all cultures. For example, let's say that in some Native American society there was a ritual where warriors would stab themselves with two spears, tie straps to the spears and be dragged around the campsite for days until they hallucinated. This supposedly made them stronger and ready for death if they didn't die from the ritual. This ritual is a cultural product- something that became an institution (i.e. warrior preparation) and passed down the generations. I contend that by being born into this society, the individual now has to carry the burden of this ritual. Sure, we can say everything is relative, and in that culture the pain of the ritual was clearly "useful" for the soceitt in some sense. But the point is not arguing for or against relativism, but of the fact that individuals are ALWAYS at the behest of social institutions (even hermits/loners/monks/homeless) and thus used by them. The mere fact of an individual's birth is a semiotic sign that it is the institutions parents are approving of. What does that mean for the individual?

People will claim that individual identities are socially constructed, thus any point about the individual born at the behest of institutions (and therefore being used by them) is a moot point. The individual wouldn't exist without institutions, according to this reasoning, thus there is no dichotomy.

I think this is overlooking the fact that even if humans are socially constructed, they still act as if they are autonomous, and operate accordingly. Thus, even if a delusion of sorts, the self still is real, whether in a folk way or not. This self identity being autonomous and independent to at least its own thinking self, is very much here to perpetuate the institutions. Family needs to be carried on, schools need to be filled, jobs need to be filled, governments need to run, cultural practices need to be practiced by more people. No one is here for their own sake. That is an impossibility.

Birth is the least questioned yet most pervasive institution. It is the institution which makes more individuals to carry forth other institutions. The West thinks it has bypassed this idea that people are born to continue culture. That seems to be a tribal idea- tribes need more people so the tribe does not die out. However, it is simply a much more elaborate way of doing the same thing. There is no real difference. In fact, the fact that it is not as straightforward as "tribe needs continuing" makes it more suspicious. By the cultural practice of "personal development" we are getting people to more fully embrace the institutions which need perpetuating. The "invisible hand" strengthens the institutions and the hand clenches its fist squeezing the individual ever more- goading it forward continually sacrificing at the gates of society.

schopenhauer1

@Baden
@Bitter Crank
@Wosret
@Metaphysician Undercover
Feel free to weigh in!

ssu

(I don't if this is restricted to the above people to answer, but still I'll give a shot)

Even if it if sounds far too simple and obvious, the reason for these institutions to exist is that societies so complex and interdependent as we have now can function. Institutions, those "stable recurring patterns of behaviour" are simply demanded in a highly complex society where basically all people are dependant on actions of others. People living in huge megacities totally dependent on a globalized market literally need a highly complex logistical system that could not exist without a multitude of various institutions that people would follow.

The more specialized our society comes, the more it needs various kinds of institutions: economic markets, nation states, international organizations and so on. Thus there are various kinds of institutions that we have to teach people. We have more roles as individuals that let's say some hunter-gatherers of some small tribe earlier. Everybody here has is a member of various organizations, likely has a profession and are citizens of some country.

I think too much emphasis is put on institutions as being a way to control the individual... as somehow without them (the institutions) being forced upon us, we as individuals would be better off (and hence these institutions shouldn't be forced upon the individual). Much less is given thought to the sheer rational of institutions as ways to create social cohesion, ways for our large societies to operate smoothly.

Hence It's not in any way surprising that one of the biggest institution that Schopenhauer1 states to be the "cultural practice of personal development" that "gets people to more fully embrace the institutions which need perpetuating" would be in my view the educational system as a whole, that now spans from kindergarten to the university.

The West thinks it has bypassed this idea that people are born to continue culture. That seems to be a tribal idea- tribes need more people so the tribe does not die out. — schopenhauer1

No, that is just our sheer hubris and ignorance.

We don't even think of our culture being in any way connected to some tribal ideal, but simply as a "culmination of human progress". You simply cannot overestimate the vast hubris that we in the West have when thinking about ourselves. This is the best thing humans can created so far. Hence Western individualism, consumerism, democracy, justice-state, human rights and so on are not seen as part of Western culture, but of something universal condition that has come as irreversible force upon human kind. Of course when look at the discourse in non-Western societies about just what is "Western", it tells a different viewpoint from ours. But we don't care about that.

BC

People will claim that individual identities are socially constructed, thus any point about the individual born at the behest of institutions (and therefore being used by them) is a moot point. The individual wouldn't exist without institutions, according to this reasoning, thus there is no dichotomy.

I think this is overlooking the fact that even if humans are socially constructed, they still act as if they are autonomous, and operate accordingly. — schopenhauer1

People will claim that individual identities are socially constructed, true enough, but their claim doesn't make it a fact. I think that in the long run (and in shorter time than that) genetic evidence will show that much of an individual's personality is pre-loaded before a child is born. That isn't to say our preference for Mozart over Bach is genetic, but that we like music, and our capacity to enjoy it (to understand it) probably is. Likewise, the capacity to produce music--Palestrina, Mozart, Django Reinhart, Duke Ellington, or the latest hip hopper--is likely inborn, genetic.

Humans are autonomous because they have evolved to be autonomous. Autonomy wasn't invented a couple of decades ago. Children need years of nurture, but nature has set the table. It is the nature of our species to employ culture to perpetuate ourselves. Language, story telling, writing, drama, music, fiction, factual material -- all sorts of narratives are composed to perpetuate ANY culture.

It is clear that by procreating, we are assenting to the perpetuation of economic and cultural institutions. — schopenhauer1

Procreation happens because nature is running that particular show. People do not breed to make political statements (well, almost never), but people do avoid breeding to make political statements. One has to go way out of one's way to avoid procreation; if one isn't paying attention, reproduction will happen. Nature makes sure it does.

schopenhauer1

Even if it if sounds far too simple and obvious, the reason for these institutions to exist is that societies so complex and interdependent as we have now can function. Institutions, those "stable recurring patterns of behaviour" are simply demanded in a highly complex society where basically all people are dependant on actions of others. People living in huge megacities totally dependent on a globalized market literally need a highly complex logistical system that could not exist without a multitude of various institutions that people would follow.

The more specialized our society comes, the more it needs various kinds of institutions: economic markets, nation states, international organizations and so on. Thus there are various kinds of institutions that we have to teach people. We have more roles as individuals that let's say some hunter-gatherers of some small tribe earlier. Everybody here has is a member of various organizations, likely has a profession and are citizens of some country. — ssu

But my point was that it doesn't matter how complex the society is, institutions are there even in tribal societies. The point was the opposite rather, that across cultures, society wants to perpetuate its institutions at the behest of the individual by procreating more people which will carry forth the institutions of the culture. This can be in more complex societies, or tribal societies. The function works the same way. It's just that in "modern" societies, the appearance of individuals doing things for themselves and not for their institutions seems to hide this fact, but it is really the same.

I think too much emphasis is put on institutions as being a way to control the individual... as somehow without them (the institutions) being forced upon us, we as individuals would be better off (and hence these institutions shouldn't be forced upon the individual). Much less is given thought to the sheer rational of institutions as ways to create social cohesion, ways for our large societies to operate smoothly. — ssu

You also got this misinterpreted. I DON'T think we can survive without institutions. The point was that individuals are here to perpetuate the institutions. At the least, we are here in order to navigate through the mazes of the existing set-up (but for no reason except to watch someone go through this). At the least it is absurd. Why do people have to be born to navigate the institutions?

Hence It's not in any way surprising that one of the biggest institution that Schopenhauer1 states to be the "cultural practice of personal development" that "gets people to more fully embrace the institutions which need perpetuating" would be in my view the educational system as a whole, that now spans from kindergarten to the university. — ssu

Not necessarily schooling, no. That could be part of it. What I mean by personal development, is how we egoistically try to pursue our own self-interest and by thinking that we are doing things for ourselves, really we are participating more full-heartedly in the institutions (markets, school, consumption, production, jobs, investments, government, family, etc. etc.). In other words, you thinking you're doing stuff for yourself, is actually strengthening the institutions so, the perpetuation of the institutions is a bit more hidden than say a tribal society where the individual directly knows they are perpetuating tribal cultural/institutional norms and practices.

Hence Western individualism, consumerism, democracy, justice-state, human rights and so on are not seen as part of Western culture, but of something universal condition that has come as irreversible force upon human kind. Of course when look at the discourse in non-Western societies about just what is "Western", it tells a different viewpoint from ours. But we don't care about that. — ssu

Although you may have a point here, you are getting tripped up on the word "Western". If you'd like, think of the word "modern" or "post-modern". I don't care. The point is that in our "modern" globalized system now, that started in the 1400s in Europe, and continued increasingly with the industrial revolution, etc. these institutions have become more and more atomized so that individuals think that by pursuing their own self-interest they really aren't just throwing more individuals into the behest of institutions, However, that is not the case. By having more children, the parent is trying to say that the child needs to participate in institutions and carry them forward (work, production, consumption, government, etc. etc.). Thus the final idea is that individuals are not born for themselves. That is an impossibility. They are here to keep institutions going.

schopenhauer1

Humans are autonomous because they have evolved to be autonomous. Autonomy wasn't invented a couple of decades ago. Children need years of nurture, but nature has set the table. It is the nature of our species to employ culture to perpetuate ourselves. Language, story telling, writing, drama, music, fiction, factual material -- all sorts of narratives are composed to perpetuate ANY culture. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, but that's my point. ALL humans from EVERY culture are here to perpetuate the culture, and are not here for themselves. That is an impossibility since we are too imbued with the systems of culture/institutions that provide survival and entertainment for it to be otherwise. Why do humans have to born, if what we are doing is not for X, Y, Z for Johnny the individual, but really to keep X, Y, Z for the cultural institutions going.

Procreation happens because nature is running that particular show. People do not breed to make political statements (well, almost never), but people do avoid breeding to make political statements. One has to go way out of one's way to avoid procreation; if one isn't paying attention, reproduction will happen. Nature makes sure it does. — Bitter Crank

That is the radical notion going on here though, that even though procreation is not thought of as political it is one of the most political of actions. By procreating you are assenting that you want to see something participate in (and therefore strengthen and perpetuate) the current institutions. It's a very conservative political statement actually in the true sense of preserving traditions by having new people thrown into the world to navigate and perpetuate them. The good worker, the good consumer, the good family man, the good innovator, the good thinker, the good entertainment-seeker, etc. etc. it's all part of perpetuating the institution. All the hopes put on the newborn is really hopes for tribal flourishing. However, Bitter Crank, as you know, the mere descriptive is not where my conclusion stops. The main point is that individual lives are used at the behest of institutions. We are thrown into the world with the burden of navigating the institutions for survival and entertainment, and every waking day must put forth the energy to keep our bodily systems going and minds occupied by putting forth energy by interacting in all sorts of (often stressful) ways with institutions. Then comes the notion of instrumentality. Why do more people need to keep doing this? It is circular reasoning. Because parents or society in general likes to watch new people navigate the course of life seems to be the stock answer that I am trying to get at with this "perpetuating institutions" argument. This is a political statement that the institutions are "good" and people need to "experience" them and continue them.

ssu

Thank's for the good response, schopenhauer1. I think I now understand your point better.

What I mean by personal development, is how we egoistically try to pursue our own self-interest and by thinking that we are doing things for ourselves, really we are participating more full-heartedly in the institutions (markets, school, consumption, production, jobs, investments, government, family, etc. etc.). In other words, you thinking you're doing stuff for yourself, is actually strengthening the institutions so, the perpetuation of the institutions is a bit more hidden than say a tribal society where the individual directly knows they are perpetuating tribal cultural/institutional norms and practices. — schopenhauer1

I think I agree with what you are saying.

It is clever marketing in the age of individualism that plays into the egoistical individualism of our modern consumerist times. After all, just look at what is depicted as to be the goal when people are told to"be what they want to be" or "live their life to the max". Now collective ideas like the nation state itself or liberalism (in the classical sense of political economy) might not today be viewed so positively as before, but the institutions are there. People aren't asked directly to make sacrifices to those institutions anymore, but they are still there.

Comes to my mind this following piece from Slavoj Zizék about modern capitalism and charity. Even if I'm not a leftist, I have to agree with him.

Although you may have a point here, you are getting tripped up on the word "Western". If you'd like, think of the word "modern" or "post-modern". I don't care. The point is that in our "modern" globalized system now, that started in the 1400s in Europe, — schopenhauer1

That is the Western hubris that I talked about: it will happily change the word "western" to "modern" as being synonyms! Yet just look at Japan, one of the high achievers in the World that surely isn't part of the Western culture. It's history doesn't look at all similar to ours (that is before we imposed our ways after defeating them in WW2).

By having more children, the parent is trying to say that the child needs to participate in institutions and carry them forward (work, production, consumption, government, etc. etc.). Thus the final idea is that individuals are not born for themselves. That is an impossibility. They are here to keep institutions going. — schopenhauer1

Well, if you have children, wouldn't you want the best for them? And for them to have a happy life, they have to manage the complex system the society has facing them. And it's institutions.

Yet the simple fact is that we are having less children because we simply don't need them for ourselves. We don't need children in order for them to take care of us when we are old or help us to get income or produce to the family.

Why we sacrifice individuals in the name of culture/social institutions?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions