There is a wonderful book called *Freedom and Culture* by Dorothy Lee in which she explores the relationship between the individual and the group and describes a number of societies in which the synergistic relationship between the individual and the group is such that, not only is individuality not stifled, but it is enhanced. There are a number of principles that are illustrated in this gem of a book. One of the most important, IMHO, is that this is possible in societies in which there is no such thing as a concept of deviance. "Morality can be seen as secular and inhering in the degree to which a social structure allows order and community; destructive individual or societal behavior is the result of a failure to attain that order." (shades of Plato here) The quotes are here because the sentence is from an unfinished paper of mine.
It is not a simple concept but the essence of the relationship between the absence of any idea of deviance and the development of individuality is that in an ordered society, no matter what a child does, the child is not considered deviant-neither are adults. There are mistakes, there is unacceptable behavior, there is behavior that has to be restrained, perhaps (although there is almost no aggression in these societies), but there is no such thing as deviance that attaches to a person so as to in any way stifle that person's individuality. In this context, the need for formal social control or the use of force is seen as the result of a lack of community and a lack of social order. It is really not possible to understand this without discussing a number of other concepts related to it. But there is evidence that it is entirely possible to have societies in which individual uniqueness benefits the community and vice versa. Just think about it seriously and I think some of you will see that it makes a great deal of sense. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:12 PM Subject: Re: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping) > Christoph Reuss wrote: > > > > Selma Singer wrote: > > > Ruth Benedict's work supplied evidence that societies range > > > on a continuum of those that pit individuals against each other to societies > > > that support structures that insure that both individuals and groups are > > > satisfied most fully by supporting each other; that working in one's own > > > interests is, at one and the same time, working in the interests of the > > > group and of others; in such societies when an individual works in her/his > > > own best interests, s/he simultaneously works in the best interests of the > > > group and vice versa. > [snip] > > Gregory Bateson makes the same point. He also notes that in some of the > cooperation-oriented societies the individual's self-expressivity is > stifled. > > The challenge seems to me to have a society in which cooperation is > based > on the fostering of individual creativity and critical judgment. > Jan Szczepanski argued for this in his magisterial essay "Individuality > and Society" (Impact of science on society, 31(4), 461-466). > > To carry Bruno Latour's motif a step further: We have never yet really > been human (Latour says we have never yet really been modern). > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
