posted 10-17-2001 09:50 PM               

To what extent are people independent and private? Especially considering the fact that everything we do affects others in some way? For instance, if you're getting married (the most personal decision of all, it seems to me), your family will to some degree be affected because your happiness affects your family. So should your family have a definitive say (by "definitive", I'm referring to actual power beyond the usual advice-seeking scenario) in who you marry, and what your career is, and your children, etc.? That has been the view in many Asian cultures: that people are interdependent, and that therefore everyone has a say in what everyone does.

My response to that would be that a)your marriage affects you more than your parents, seeing that your spouse is your life partner and all, and b)if your family is emotionally affected by your marriage, it is because they choose to be, whereas you don't have much of a choice over whether or not you're affected by it unless you're some kind of a serene Zen monk, so you're not obliged to ask their advice. Also, no one else can imagine what a relationship is like for you, because relationships are such highly personalized things, so someone else's opinion would always be secondary to yours.

posted 10-18-2001 09:59 PM               

In the specific example you allude to, it's a somehat tricky question. Being in a tightknit family or clan like scenario can have benefits, in that you always have a support net underneath you and feel a sense of belonging -- I'm sure there are other benefits as well. I don't think that's how things should be, in the sense that everyone should live their lives like that or they're wrong, but I think it's one way things could be. If someone feels comfortable in that setting, and thus lives his or her life according to more of a consensus, then that's cool. If they don't feel comfortable that way, then they can choose to give up the benefits of that lifestyle. In that case, it does kind of come down to an individual choice about how much individual choice one wants to exercise.

posted 10-19-2001 12:05 PM               

I have no problem being a part of, participating in, and sacrificing for, a community. I do have a problem with it, however, if that participation becomes a means of accumulating or bestowing some kind of artificial "status" within that community. And this sort of thing doesn't end at high school.

Don't ask me why someone who generally avoids crowds and is deathly afraid of the mob mentality is even participating in a community thread - so many times, the downside is all that I can see. But maybe that's the perspective gained from having been burned a few times.

posted 10-23-2001 09:51 PM               

quote:

---

I tend to focus on the interdependence, not because I think it's the total answer, but I do believe that in American and Western culture we err far too much on the other side, and neglect the consequences our actions have on others.

---

I think that the tricky part of thinking about the consequences our actions have on others is that almost every one of our actions has an effect on others. If you get divorced, and you are as a result unhappy, your family and friends will be affected because they have a stake in your happiness due to your close relationship to them--so does that mean that they get veto power over your actions? I would say no: if your mom worries about your divorce, it's because she chooses to worry; you, on the other hand, have to worry about it whether you like it or not.

quote:

---

If someone feels comfortable in that setting, and thus lives his or her life according to more of a consensus, then that's cool. If they don't feel comfortable that way, then they can choose to give up the benefits of that lifestyle. In that case, it does kind of come down to an individual choice about how much individual choice one wants to exercise.

---

I would disagree with this, of course. I see an individual's relation to others as being a matter of consensual contract (i.e., you choose to accept society's help and support, so you also accept society's say in your life, but you can choose to do neither if you want), and I would agree that different people like different levels of independence and interdependence. But that still is, if you think about it, putting a premium on individualism. I think that's the right attitude, and that an excessive group mentality is not only stifling but harmful. But I'd be curious to hear from others.

posted 10-23-2001 11:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kali:
I think that the tricky part of thinking about the consequences our actions have on others is that almost every one of our actions has an effect on others. If you get divorced, and you are as a result unhappy, your family and friends will be affected because they have a stake in your happiness due to your close relationship to them--so does that mean that they get veto power over your actions? I would say no: if your mom worries about your divorce, it's because she chooses to worry; you, on the other hand, have to worry about it whether you like it or not.

---

I think that talking about this in terms of 'veto power' is too simplistic. In decisions such as your divorce example, if my mom has 'veto power' over my decision, it's because ultimately I chose to give it to her. That's the 'inidividualism' end of the spectrum. But there are practical consequences for others; my wife and kids, for example, would be affected by my decision to get a divorce. More significantly, all of society has been affected by my choice to get married and (in this example) have kids . . . if I were to merely leave, society would bear the consequences of my no longer supporting them, and so society has a right to say to me, "Look, you're welcome to act, but there are consequences for your actions -- direct and practical consequences -- and so you are going to have to addres those." That's more toward the interdependence end. And if I'm a responsible person, before I decide to get married or have kids or get divorced, I ought to be thinking of who besides myself is going to be affected by my decision and whether or not I'm comfortable with those effects. And like I said, I don't think we do that enough in our culture. It's too much, 'What I do only affects me, so don't tell me what to do or enforce any consequences on me.'

quote:

---

Yeah, but you're still advocating individual choice about how much of an isolated/independent life the individual wants to lead. But if an individual decides to leave the group and strike out on his/her own, it'll affect the group, and perhaps negatively. And, assuming we should have a say in everything that affects us, does that mean that the group should be able to veto the individual's choice to leave?

---

'A say' does not equal 'veto power.' It can mean a role in the discussion, a voice at the table. And it would be a mistake to isolate whether Member X can leave the group as the relevant decision here. Whether any member will have the right to leave the group is a more general question that does affect the entire society, and so the entire society will form some conclusion on the matter; individuals growing up in that society will absorb at least something of that conclusion. Individuals do not exist in vacuums.

quote:

---

I would disagree with this, of course. I see an individual's relation to others as being a matter of consensual contract (i.e., you choose to accept society's help and support, so you also accept society's say in your life, but you can choose to do neither if you want), and I would agree that different people like different levels of independence and interdependence.

---

I am leery of the social-contract-esque language you use here, because I think the social contract is a fiction that assumes individuals are completely formed in their beliefs and attitudes outside of whatever society they exist in, which isn't the case.

quote:

---

But that still is, if you think about it, putting a premium on individualism. I think that's the right attitude, and that an excessive group mentality is not only stifling but harmful. But I'd be curious to hear from others.

---

posted 11-10-2001 09:57 PM               

I'm currently in the process of looking at graduate schools, and one of those is the University of Southern California. Now, the likelihood of my being accepted at such a fine institution of higher learning is much the same as my likelihood of winning a VH1 Style Award, but that's neither here nor there at this point.

My family is very close-knit, and just about everyone in it has said that they'd prefer me to stay closer to home (Dave and Pattie have expressed this desire as well, even going so far as to offer me room and board and frequent batches of cookies). But really, the decision is mine, and if I decide it's what's best for me ... well, that's what's best for me, and someone that truly cares for me will recognize that I've made the right decision based on all the factors involved. And of course, those factors would include how much of a physical and emotional need there is for me by people on the East Coast. Damn my popularity.

posted 11-11-2001 08:08 PM               

I've got a great bunch of friends in the LA area, one of whom is constantly pestering me to move back. He means the best, but it's not in my current best interest to leave my job or where I currently live because it would be fun to live nearer to these friends. They understand that, but they still ask. I consider it a twisted way of letting me know how much they care. I prefer not to think they enjoy causing angst or guilt trips for me.

It's all give and take. It you feel that what you will get is bigger in the long run than what you might have to give up, you may choose to allow another to "dictate" decisions for you. When that payoff disappears, that's when the selfishness shows up. Why sacrifice something for someone else if what you're getting out of the deal isn't worth it to you?

[Kevin, good luck. If you do get in, I will try to find it in my heart to forgive you, seeing as I am a huge UCLA fan and hate USC with the heat of a thousand red hot suns.]

posted 11-13-2001 10:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Ott:
decisions like these begin with each of us recognizing, unselfishly and unmodestly, our place within our communities, and our relationships with others. The more we realize those places, the more easily we'll be able to make life decisions with them in mind, and to accept the decisions of others.

---

posted 01-26-2002 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

I am leery of the social-contract-esque language you use here, because I think the social contract is a fiction that assumes individuals are completely formed in their beliefs and attitudes outside of whatever society they exist in, which isn't the case.

---

I'm a firm believer in "you can do what you want, so long as you don't violate another's freedom to do what they want" because, when you come right down to it, no one knows what the "correct" choice about anything is. Not the individual, not the society. And so, everyone must be free to choose for themselves, so long as they don't harm others in the process. As for the marriage case Kali mentioned, it all seemed pretty clear to me. When you get married, you're the one who's going to live with your spouse night and day. Your mother is not. It affects her only so much as she chooses to let it affect her; it does not prevent her from doing anything she wants.

quote:

---

only you have to live with the decisions you make.

---

quote:

---

Excessive individualism can be just as harmful -- of course, the key is in what 'excessive' means.

---

posted 01-28-2002 11:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olympe:
I actually favor the idea of the "social contract", because, if you think about it, we were all originally selfish organisms struggling to perpetuate our own genetic lines. We decided to come together in a tight-knit society because it would benefit all of us (although it was, obviously, more of a gradual process than a one-time decision). Somewhere along the evolutionary line, there must have been a compact made by individuals to help each other as much as possible in order to survive--the original social contract, if you will.

---

posted 02-06-2002 04:40 PM            

quote:

---

That's exactly why I disagree with the social contract -- human beings were functioning in an interdependent way before we ever had the capacity to decide anything. We weren't rational creatures who happened upon other rational creatures and said, 'Hey, let's form a society.' Rather, our interactions eventually allowed the formation of language and what we know as reason, at which point we articulated many of the customs that already governed our interactions with each other into principles. The social contract assumes individuals are somehow hermetically sealed from each other, and can then make the decision whether or not to be part of a society and what 'rights' they are willing to relinquish. It doesn't work like that -- you can never wholly remove yourself from the context you're in.

---

Oops, that's not quite what I meant. Maybe I should have articulated this better.

Ok, let's go back to the time when we were all protozoa or earthworms or somewhere lower on the evolutionary tree. We know that the lower life-forms that were more cooperative helped each other were more likely to survive. The mother animal who cooperated with her siblings was more likely to survive and to keep her children alive, while the ones that lived alone died out. The same pattern continued after we became human: people who helped each other lived, those that didn't failed and died out, and this propagated the emphathy/cooperation genes that are assumed to exist.

So the whole point was that society evolved because it helped individuals survive. The individuals may or may not have "decided" to do thus, as I said before (probably "decided" was the wrong word to use), it probably just evolved naturally, but the point is that society evolved for the sake of the individual. Not just for its own sake. So when society/family/group/whatever stops furthering the interests of the average individual, then it becomes worthless.

When I talked about the social contract, I didn't mean to suggest that a bunch of isolated human beings came together and signed a legal contract a few millenia before Christ. What I meant was that human society came about because it helped the individual human, and when it starts to harm the individual human then it defeats its own purpose.

posted 03-02-2002 12:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olympe:

So the whole point was that society evolved because it helped individuals survive. The individuals may or may not have "decided" to do thus, as I said before (probably "decided" was the wrong word to use), it probably just evolved naturally, but the point is that society evolved for the sake of the individual. Not just for its own sake. So when society/family/group/whatever stops furthering the interests of the average individual, then it becomes worthless.

---