Really good response- you laid out the reasoning succinctly. Nothing is isolated from its social context being that we are raised in and enculturated in a society. Thus, problems may need to be approached from the standpoint of the structural and macro perspective.

What of the idea though that, even if personalities are shaped by their environment, personalities can clash in major ways which may impact the macro. In other words, perhaps the micro affects the macro in just as powerful a force. I am just providing other perspectives here.

How it is you seemingly quote Zizek and yet purport relevance to what kind of relation to society it is that we want to cultivate is beyond me. That is how the faux 'authenticity' behind genocides are legitimised just like how power is reinforced by so-called 'individualism' where opinions move in masses. — TimeLine

I don't like all this talk about authenticity vs faux authenticity any more than Street really because it's itself corrupted by a kind of romanticized individualism in my view but then I don't really like unqualified talk of our relationship to society either when the "individual" is society's term for the essentially micro-social. What is an individual but society expressing itself at the most micro-level? It's not that there's no society only individuals as Thatcher said but in some sense there are no individuals only society (at different levels) making the myth of the romantic individual vs society even more pernicious. It's not just that the individual has no hope against society, it's that that "individual" does not even exist as an "individual". At best within individuals dominated by the socialized aspect there is that which rebels against a particular form of socialization projected outwards. Maybe there in the darkness there's the possibility of a glitter of "authenticity" but all it really aspires to is the remaking of the social only at a more coherent level with respect to the "individual". It's almost like we are aiming for our own demise in the perfect society that consumes us with our consent precisely when we see ourselves most at odds with a particular social milieu.

I wouldn't disagree. But it's a case then of viewing that in context too. Is the conflict one that really threatens or ultimately reinforces social structures? Favours some over others? Moves a society in a predictable direction or destroys it? What types of societies are prone to such conflicts? What does this say about their stability? Can we make predictions based on such interactions between the micro and macro to help us with future social planning? The avoidance of catastrophe? And so on. From a critical perspective, the goal is always to improve things at a social level. At least that's the way I describe it as the minute Marxism or anything with even a shade of it is mentioned there are certain elements that will cover their ears and run away screaming. ;)

From a critical perspective, the goal is always to improve things at a social level. At least that's the way I describe it as the minute Marxism or anything with even a shade of it is mentioned there are certain elements that will cover their ears and run away screaming. — Baden

If it were a startlingly new perspective, one might uncritically applaud the goal, but the amoral sociological perspective is the spectacles 'we' have been using for a hundred years now, and arguably is the source of just the manipulative, pacifying consumerism, the monopoly of power relations, the dehumanisation, that is being critiqued.

Maybe there in the darkness there's the possibility of a glitter of "authenticity" but all it really aspires to is the remaking of the social only at a more coherent level with respect to the "individual". It's almost like we are aiming for our own demise in the perfect society that consumes us with our consent precisely when we see ourselves most at odds with a particular social milieu. — Baden

All our preferences to be "free" are ones that we gathered in our setting- the hall of mirrors. All our longings and goals are ones that are provided in our social context. There is no real individual, pure and Platonic waiting "there". Rather, it is constructed from the outside in, which flows back out. Though there is no way of getting a "pure" individualistic stance or character (as it is constructed at least partly in a socially constructed manner along with contingent experiences of the person encountering circumstances of the world), there can be a sort of "stance" in response to society and how its relations are putting pressures on you as an individual. So the issue is then to understand what goals and priorities we want from society at large and whether society is providing the avenues to obtain these goals. So what are the goals we are looking for society to do? I say, the fact that there are any goals that we perceive humans should be following are quite arbitrary, as there is no objective answer. What makes the human project necessary or even preferred as something that needs to get done?

I'm going to venture to guess most people are going to assent to the idea that society should be providing the 6 variations of happiness (deduced according to my a priori existential investigations of course ;)). That would be: experiencing achievements, physical pleasures, aesthetic pleasures (including, religion, ideology, and humor, oddly enough), relationships, learning, and immersive (killing time) physical/mental activities. So, I guess if you didn't want to be antinatalist about it, society should be setting these up as our main priorities. If you wanted to add a more interesting spin, then perhaps we should question why these 6 variations of happiness need to be carried out in the first place. That is THE structural question of questions.

If it were a startlingly new perspective, one might uncritically applaud the goal, but the amoral sociological perspective is the spectacles 'we' have been using for a hundred years now, and arguably is the source of just the manipulative, pacifying consumerism, the monopoly of power relations, the dehumanisation, that is being critiqued. — unenlightened

You say "arguably" but so far you've only asserted. Give us something more to chew on.

I think many people in this thread are smoking something quite potent... "there are no individuals, only society" :B

That is basically an underhanded way of saying that there is no free will - how could there be free will if there are no individuals? And how could anyone (including the speaker himself) be responsible for anything? It is refusing to acknowledge the origin of evil in the application of our free will.

The individual is much more obvious than society, he or she is the starting point. It makes no sense to go from the forest to the trees, since it is the trees which make up the forest in the first place. That is actually exactly why people can change society.

You have a habit of reading into comments and OPs whatever it is you happen to want to talk about. That may be convenient for you but it's not going to lead to a productive discussion.

(Anyway I need to call it a night. I'll pick it up again tomorrow.)

Look in to an individual and all you'll see is shit as Zizek would put it, some of which will inevitably be shit you put there, historians put there, speculation, excuses, stories. Shit basically in terms of understanding. Look instead at actions in context, and at each layer of context right up to the macro-social layer and its own meta-social context. — Baden

Yes to everything you said! That said, the need to attend 'outwards' to the social doesn't entail a wholesale disregard for belief and intention, but for a more nuanced understanding of how to appreciate the significance of those beliefs and intentions, which I think you'd agree with. Raymond Geuss - who has similarly written on the need for any plausible political philosophy to attend to 'action and the contexts of action' - has written some great stuff on this as well:

"The emphasis on real motivation does not require that one deny that humans have an imaginative life that is important to them, aspirations, ideals they wish to pursue, or even moral views that influence their behaviour ... What it does mean, to put it tautologically, is that these ideals and aspirations influence their behaviour and hence are politically relevant, only to the extent to which they do actually influence behaviour in some way ... A realist can fully admit that products of the human imagination are very important in human life, provided he or she keeps a keen and unwavering eye upon the basic motto Respice finem, meaning in this case not “the best way to live is to keep your mind on your end: death,” but “Don’t look just at what they say, think, believe, but at what they actually do, and what actually happens as a result.” (Geuss, Philosophy and Real Politics).

But Geuss also gets at something else that the OP is interested in (and yes, you're right that I brought up the video here as an offshoot to some thoughts re: the sexual harassment thread), which is the critical danger of 'misplacing' the level of analysis when trying to think through social phenomena:

"If I focus your attention in a very intense way on the various different tariffs and pricing schema that doctors or hospitals or drug companies impose for their products and services, and if I become morally outraged by “excessive” costs some drug companies charge, discussing at great length the relative rates of profit in different sectors of the economy, and pressing the moral claims of patients, it is not at all obvious that anything I say may be straightforwardly “false”; after all, who knows what “excessive” means? However, by proceeding in this way I might well focus your attention on narrow issues of “just” pricing, turning it away from more pressing issues about the acceptance in some societies of the very existence of a free market for drugs and medical services. One can even argue that the more outraged I become about the excessive price, the more I obscure the underlying issue."

Geuss wrote this long before the recent brouhaha over price gouging in the medical sector in the US, but it'd be an interesting exercise to look at the media coverage about it and see at what level journalists have predominantly tackled the issue (considering the spectacle that was made of and by, say, Martin Shkreli - who milked it like any good capitalist in the game ought to - I suspect the answer is obvious). But otherwise yeah, you've captured the thrust exactly - see a social problem? Zoom out, and out and out - and then in.

He completely misconceives what a social system is.
He is pressing home a view that suggests the the Social System is a causative agent, when in fact it is the sum of all social action from those that comprise it.
If any one needed a Copernican turn it is this guy.
We do not participate IN a social system, but the sum of human agents IS the social system, and as agents we exploit the structures that form about us to express our volition. This is why the Wall-E ships are not credible - the participants are too passive, and seem to act with ultimate knowledge of what they are supposed to do, rather than just try to get by as they WILL.

You say "arguably" but so far you've only asserted. Give us something more to chew on. — Baden

Ok, an outline...

Ag's individualism is empowering to each individual, whereas the sociological view is disempowering. (non absolutely).

However, the sociological view is empowering to the managerial sector who are in the position to adjust the structures of society. Those with such power will be structurally directed to conserve their own power, and thus the lawyer, the advertiser, the social work supervisor, the planning officer, the editor, will all be manipulating us in the direction of passivity, compliance, subservience to 'the forces of social necessity'. Success over a generation or two results in rage against the machine - the machinations, that is, of sociologists.

Large part of that rage is about the de-moralising of power exactly in terms of the managerial claim to be 'only doing my job'. If the lines of least resistance are in place, any idiot or asshole can be president. How's that working out for you?

Or to put it another way, we are indeed playing monopoly in a society that mandates greed, and with 50% of wealth in the hands of 1% of the players, we are near the end of the game. The game has been consciously arranged that way by people using the sociological view whereby their own actions are excused, and even laudable; they are realists as opposed to idealists - the latter being responsible for all the conflicts.

It doesn't make sense to me when you say:

It's not just that the individual has no hope against society, it's that that "individual" does not even exist as an "individual". — Baden

So, exactly where is the hope? Is there an individual or not? And if so, what is it? Is it as I say, moral consciousness, our capacity to reason and transcend this narrow and inescapable micro-social position? But, if you are saying what I think you are saying, then when I say "authentic individual" and the "construct of the individual (i.e. faux)" than essentially you and I are saying the same thing. I agree with @StreetlightX but what I got from his OP was that we cannot escape and that we are nothing more than an 'incentive structure' or empiricist in a way that we are our sensory experiences that led to what frightened me in his thinking: if this is the case, what type of society can we frame or create that works to the greatest benefit of the system (a type of system against the system), like using ideology itself against itself, the same 'faux' construct but just another version of it.

What happens to rationalism then? Are we never able to access the tools we have in the mind to learn and escape the apparent inescapable?

Or to put it another way, we are indeed playing monopoly in a society that mandates greed, and with 50% of wealth in the hands of 1% of the players, we are near the end of the game. — unenlightened

I'm not sure. Anyone can become wealthy and influential if that's what they want, provided that they have access to basic education and good health. It's easier than ever today to provide value for others at a large scale and to access the knowledge you need (although misinformation seems to be growing a lot faster than the correct information). So why does it matter if 50% of the wealth is owned by 1%? That doesn't prevent me or anyone else from acquiring wealth if that's what we're seeking. Someone else being rich does not in any way affect me.

But again, the problem is that people keep pointing fingers at others, instead of focusing on what THEY can do to change their circumstances. It's always the other - it's because the 1% own 50% of the wealth that I am poor and my life sucks. That's how they think. Instead, they should realise that the 1% owning 50% of the wealth does not stop them at all from selling to others and becoming rich themselves.

But again, the problem is that people keep pointing fingers at others, instead of focusing on what THEY can do to change their circumstances. It's always the other - it's because the 1% own 50% of the wealth that I am poor and my life sucks. That's how they think. Instead, they should realise that the 1% owning 50% of the wealth does not stop them at all from selling to others and becoming rich themselves. — Agustino

You're speaking as though playing monopoly. What if there's a different game. A sustainable and more meaningful game.

You're speaking as though playing monopoly. What if there's a different game. A sustainable and more meaningful game. — praxis

No I'm not. In the real world, it's not money that matters, it's how useful you are to the rest of the world. If you are really really useful, then you will pretty much be rich. It's hard not to be in a capitalist world.

As for games. Different games are still games, so...

In the real world, it's not money that matters, it's how useful you are to the rest of the world. If you are really really useful, then you will pretty much be rich. — Agustino

What do you mean by useful? Playing monopoly well is useful in the sense that it keeps the game going. Also useful in that it's the path of least resistance.

What do you mean by useful? Playing monopoly well is useful in the sense that it keeps the game going. Also useful in that it's the path of least resistance. — praxis

In the monopoly game you don't have to do anything useful to make money. In this world, in order to get you to flip out that fat wallet of yours and hand me part of your money I need to give you something good in exchange.

Anyone can become wealthy and influential if that's what they want, provided that they have access to basic education and good health. — Agustino

I might want to add a few more provisos, but suppose someone doesn't want to become wealthy and influential, suppose they want to teach, or nurse, or something. I don't think that means that they want to be poor and despised.

suppose they want to teach, or nurse, or something. I don't think that means that they want to be poor and despised. — unenlightened

Ok, but then they need to make sure they can influence and help a large number of people. There's teaching and there's teaching. Going to a state college or school to teach wouldn't be a way to maximise your reach, nor your wealth for that matter. If you don't really work to make a difference for a lot of people, chances are you may struggle financially. You're better off combining regular teaching with other forms of less traditional teaching, such as what Jordan Peterson does. He makes $70K+/month just from Patreon donations right now.

Really, in capitalism it all revolves around money. You need more money to teach more people, so ideally you'd want to earn as much as possible if your goal is to teach.

If your goal is to nurse, ideally you won't be satisfied just with your own efforts, but would want to start a larger movement, again that requires capital, etc.

You haven't explained exactly what you mean by useful. I suggest there can be a big difference between 'useful' and 'meaningful'.

If your goal is to nurse, ideally you won't be satisfied just with your own efforts, but would want to start a larger movement, again that requires capital, etc. — Agustino

No. I don't want to start a movement, not everyone does, I don't need capital etc. I don't want to play monopoly, or empires, I want to play happy families.

Yes! Don't stop being a nurse to become a manager.

He is pressing home a view that suggests the the Social System is a causative agent, when in fact it is the sum of all social action from those that comprise it. — charleton

Because of things like memory, writing, and the development of new systems within the larger social system(e.g., political parties), the greater social system has inertia and in this way expresses a will of its own. The cells in my eyes move with my body despite them having nothing to do with propelling my legs.

You haven't explained exactly what you mean by useful. I suggest there can be a big difference between 'useful' and 'meaningful'. — praxis

Useful is something that others find valuable.

No. I don't want to start a movement, not everyone does, I don't need capital etc. I don't want to play monopoly, or empires, I want to play happy families. — unenlightened

Right, but without capital and empires you cannot spread your work to as many people as possible. You are limited to only helping a very minor group...

I'm not interested in money for its own sake, but in capitalism you must play empires in order to create changes in the larger society.

...you must play empires in order to create changes in the larger society. — Agustino

That's what I'm getting at. The change I want to make is to create a way of interacting that is not building empires You say I must play empires to stop playing empires, and I don't believe you.

That's what I'm getting at. The change I want to make is to create a way of interacting that is not building empires You say I must play empires to stop playing empires, and I don't believe you. — unenlightened

Impossible unenlightened... don't be naive. If you refuse to play empires, then those who do play empires can always sidetrack your efforts and your work. It's how a capitalist world works. So even if you want to stop playing empires you must play empires.

Well this is exactly what I mean by needing a Copernican turn. The social system has no volition, even if you consider it greater than the sum of its parts it can only ever be a collection of actors.
Your eyes and legs analogy does not work in the slightest.

I mean it's the same with military technologies. Countries gotta keep up with it, even if they are peaceful. Being peaceful doesn't mean that others won't attack you.