Since anomie has been brought to the table

[Ian Livingston]

Well, I cannot agree that fiction is an adequately representative
sample of human insight upon which to base a generalization to all
humanity, and particularly not Nobel literature, which prize is
awarded more for prose and overall beauty than the deep study of human
psychology, philosophy, and sociology. Literature certainly can shade
our interpretations and provide metaphors by which to express the
insights derived through study, but it does not substitute for
scientific investigation. Anyway, for every Nobel laureate awarded for
insights into human violence, there are legion examples of human
kindness and succor in the world.

I will agree, however, that governments foment violence, because
governments represent the potential power of a people concentrated
into bodies skewed by avarice, lust, and the desire for personal fame
that those thus represented consent to follow. Individuals are more
capable of progressing along lines of development than are groups, and
when it comes to violence, it is the line of values development that
is most influential. If a woman or a man desires something the pursuit
of which will do no harm to others, that pursuit may be said to be
virtuous, in keeping with the values of what is good for all; if, on
the other hand, that person desires something in someone else's house
and that person would be harmed by the loss of what the first desires,
then the pursuit of that desired object is not virtuous, and runs
counter to the value system of what is good. A fight will almost
certainly ensue. Governments make those fights big, nasty brawls that
kill lots of innocent people and destroy billions of non-human lives
in the process. No adequate assessment has even been attempted, for
instance, of the impact the massive bombing the US gave SE Asia during
the Vietnam War. There really is no way of knowing how many species
might have been thus rendered extinct. But, wait, I'm down a rabbit
hole. It is not because humans are violent by nature that wars get
waged, but because groups of humans progress slowly along
developmental lines. We can sit back at our distance and judge the
warriors from our personal developmental memes and say oh, what beasts
men are, but in so doing we speak only about our values, not about
what fed the violence and how to help prevent that from happening
again. It seems logical that there are ways to avert
government-sponsored violence, and the thought of doing so certainly
induces good feeling, but the how of it is a big question. Maybe there
could be some test to determine the ability of potential leaders to
negotiate changes in values that represent that which is most
conducive to goodness for all, or some such utopian plan. If the
future is an open book, it behooves us to keep the book open.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Very interesting thread. Thanks Alice. Agreed, we have this violent streak.
> Is it more pronounced in some, or simply less under control? Who decides
> what level is socially acceptable? It's a difficult question to answer.
> Democracy seemed like the best idea so far, and still does, in many ways,
> but how do we make it work for everyone? Again, difficult. So many different
> cultures, levels of intelligence, moral awareness, belief systems, etc. So
> many different people living in increasingly compressed spaces.
>
> As far as suicide, we know so much about human psychology, sociology, but I
> still don't think we really completely understand what drives us.
>
> There's a lot in this thread to think about.
>
> anomie-"an acute disjunction between the cultural norms and goals and the
> socially structured capacities of the members of the group to act in accord
> with them". How big is the group? Our neighborhood, state, church, school,
> country? Complicated issues.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen
> <lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Don't know about your specific type of think tank, but of course there's
>> Robert K. Merton, one of the most important sociologists of the 20th
>> century, who referred to Durkheim's concept of anomie and transfered it to
>> his theory of deviance (still used in today's criminology) in 1938. Merton
>> defines anomie as "an acute disjunction between the cultural norms and goals
>> and the socially structured capacities of the members of the group to act in
>> accord with them". So there is no continuity between cultural goals and the
>> required means. At least not when you stay with legitimate and legal means.
>> So some - think Pacino in Scarface - become criminals to fulfill their
>> American Dream --
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07.01.2012 16:35, Paul Mackin wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> The staff sociologist at the think tank i was at used to use the word to
>>> described the psychological state of workers brought about by the
>>> meaninglessness of industrial work.
>>>
>>> Lack of rule was extended to mean lack of meaning.
>>>
>>> He quoted Durkheim sometimes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.innergroovemusic.com



-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant