All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.
Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.
In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.
The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?
The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?
The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.
Showing posts with label social identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social identity. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Seriously....Human
I have a hunch about human nature that I think is universal. Humans want to be taken seriously. What does that mean?
Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.
Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.
People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.
Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".
I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.
The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.
The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.
How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?
I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.
Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.
Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.
People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.
Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".
I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.
The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.
The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.
How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?
I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Identities, Faith and Such...
Identities are known to be "attached" to something. A fully developed and functioning "self" has come to understand itself within a framework of values that are of utmost importance. These values hold the "key" to understand what motivates the person to action and is what the personal identity is "attached to".
Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.
Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.
Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?
Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".
Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.
Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.
Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?
Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Philosophical Reality and Personal Reality
In the past, I have written about philosophical reality, using an open, closed or flat "universe". These philosophical distinctions form ideological "worlds" and understanding. These "worlds" are what are useful to help us in bringing a larger identity to a personal one.
While enlarging our personal identity to include a "world" is important, it is no less important to affirm, search and find one's personal identity, when the "former world" is challenged. This work is done in adolescence, and into the college years, and sometimes in the middle aged years, where cognition is challenged with information that doesn't "fit" one's particular familial "world" and social contexts.
I understand this search, struggle and eventual commitment as a development of "self" in understanding, identity formation and vocation. Research suggests that one's personal identity can be stymied through abuse, limiting the child's development beyond that point in time, inhibiting development. I wonder how these limitations affect the development of personal identity.
While philosophical questions answer the "big questions" about how life should be and why, it does not answer or address personhood. Personhood is personal boundary matinence that understands where one's commitments lie and why, which is value clarification. Personal identity is based on these important ponts of development. This is what education is about. Education allows for the individual child, young person or middle ager to formulate their own way of viewing life, from many perspectives, broadening the opportunities and enlarging one's capacity to engage a larger world.
Philosophical questions should not be answered by an intellectual, or spiritual elite, otherwise, personal identity ceases to exist and the person becomes an object of Statism, or "state interests". This happens in coercive, oppressive, and uniform political "systems". Our country does not view the individual in such ways.
Our country's Founding Fathers understood that the individual was created with certain inalienable rights, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We Americans, must not allow our freedoms to be subverted in the name of any "high sounding moral virtue", such as "the common good", "public interest", or "community welfare". These are terms that play on man's false sense of responsiblity for another, in sacrificing their own personal boundary, to the demise of all civil, moral or rational "order". The "civil, moral and rational order" was the underlying belief of our Founding Fathers belief in natural law. And natural law is the basis of our rule of law and the natural sciences. We undermine these to our own personal destruction, as well as enabling corruption within and without government which affects us all.
While enlarging our personal identity to include a "world" is important, it is no less important to affirm, search and find one's personal identity, when the "former world" is challenged. This work is done in adolescence, and into the college years, and sometimes in the middle aged years, where cognition is challenged with information that doesn't "fit" one's particular familial "world" and social contexts.
I understand this search, struggle and eventual commitment as a development of "self" in understanding, identity formation and vocation. Research suggests that one's personal identity can be stymied through abuse, limiting the child's development beyond that point in time, inhibiting development. I wonder how these limitations affect the development of personal identity.
While philosophical questions answer the "big questions" about how life should be and why, it does not answer or address personhood. Personhood is personal boundary matinence that understands where one's commitments lie and why, which is value clarification. Personal identity is based on these important ponts of development. This is what education is about. Education allows for the individual child, young person or middle ager to formulate their own way of viewing life, from many perspectives, broadening the opportunities and enlarging one's capacity to engage a larger world.
Philosophical questions should not be answered by an intellectual, or spiritual elite, otherwise, personal identity ceases to exist and the person becomes an object of Statism, or "state interests". This happens in coercive, oppressive, and uniform political "systems". Our country does not view the individual in such ways.
Our country's Founding Fathers understood that the individual was created with certain inalienable rights, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We Americans, must not allow our freedoms to be subverted in the name of any "high sounding moral virtue", such as "the common good", "public interest", or "community welfare". These are terms that play on man's false sense of responsiblity for another, in sacrificing their own personal boundary, to the demise of all civil, moral or rational "order". The "civil, moral and rational order" was the underlying belief of our Founding Fathers belief in natural law. And natural law is the basis of our rule of law and the natural sciences. We undermine these to our own personal destruction, as well as enabling corruption within and without government which affects us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
