Sitting in the library, a history graduate student named Todd walked by asking if anyone was a sociology major. One happened to be sitting across from me: he turned and answered the call. The question came, "What is the definition of society?" This sociologist in training was having difficulty, so I stepped in.I tend to think that philosophy guards against this problem by its very nature, but even there we sometimes find ourselves speechless in the face of broad questions. If we do so because of issue's immense complexity, that is one thing. It is another thing entirely, though, to find ourselves without words because we have never before considered the question.
Now for something about motive. I wonder how much the desire to avoid being caught off guard by questions like these drives me? The intellectual component is crucial to my identity, so to be asked a question directly related to my particular field, to be unable to answer it, and then to have someone else step in to deliver a well thought-out answer... it would humiliate me. And it would do so to the point that I wouldn't want it to happen again.
I've been on his end of situations like this before, but never to the same degree. They have certainly played a part in motivating intellectual rigor and competence. It's one way that social pressure can be used positively. Which brings up the question, why does "social pressure" promote what it does? In other words, how have we formed the content of what we pressure socially?
Moments after the encounter with the sociologist-in-training, two sorority sisters were talking and one asked, "So, you going out tonight?" When she received a negative, she automatically turned up the pressure and delivered an incredulous "What? Why not?" How did this become the lifestyle that we promote?
I'm reminded of Stuart Silvers and Richard Carrier here. There are facts of the matter as to what constitutes a flourishing individual (as there are facts of the matter as to what constitutes a flourishing society). Given most people's preferences, it would not be a difficult task to demonstrate how their immediate actions are counterintuitive to their deep desires and preferences. The compulsive, recidivist party-goer lifestyle fits this bill. As would the lifestyle advocated by most mono-theistic religions.
How is it that we get so off base? How is it that we, as individuals, pressure our friends to do things which none of us really wants to do? With alcohol, there is a massive (and massively profitable) industry which is quite interested in our continual consumption of alcohol. Thus advertising and culture shaping. But it looks to get darker from there: alcohol placates. We drink away our sorrows rather than acting to change the conditions of our lives. The image that comes to mind is that of a working class bar - exhausted workers find small bits of solace. And so it goes, people deplore their lives but never seek to change them because of transient solace.
But how is it that we've created institutions opposed to our needs and preferences as human beings? It's as if these institutions have taken on their own identities and perpetuate regardless of their effect on human happiness. Instead, they perpetuate based on their ability to perpetuate themselves. I've now walked into a larger discussion of sociocultural evolution.
I'll put that aside for now. What I'm wondering is how we can direct and channel sociocultural evolution. How can we use social pressure to change the way we think? (I'm tempted to say: to make us think in the first place). This kind of pressure certainly can't be separated from other forms of pressure: economic and political (the kind of social pressure I'm talking about would find its home in the community and kinship spheres of life). Real change will only take place when we touch all the spheres of life. But it always has to start with the community and kinship spheres of life. And after we have affected enough change there, we could begin to change the economic and political spheres. But those sort of top-down solutions are always the logical outcome and maturation of bottom-up movements.
If a movement never affects the political and economic spheres, it's likely because they failed to legitimate themselves. While I think this is a valid critique of many activist groups past and present, I think their response is well taken: Why should I legitimate myself to a corrupt and repugnant society? Because you will hardly ever affect the change you desire otherwise. I'd say that response also overestimates the hold darker parts of society have over the individual. If activists would appeal to the real needs and preferences of the individuals and illuminate how particular actions fit into a broader context, then they would be legitimating themselves. If you shudder at the idea of legitimating yourself to society, them legitimate yourself to the human being hiding below the surface.
