tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post7190266268135201214..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Atomism versus holism in social ontologyDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-81430696323975918232023-01-08T11:28:57.219-05:002023-01-08T11:28:57.219-05:00It is interesting how meaning(s) for the term, mem...It is interesting how meaning(s) for the term, meme, have proliferated over a couple of decades. Dawkins and perhaps some others used the term to talk less officially about phenotype: characteristics of species or families of living things, i.e., beavers' dam building; termite 'castles'; bower bird boudoirs and so on. Now, anything which may be characteristic of anything can be a meme, whether it is hundreds of years ancient or only a few months or years. It is curious, if not altogether relevant...but, well, no---I am neither linguist nor semanticist. I just try to pay attention. And the terms, mass and popular culture have lost favor since recognition of the 'culture wars'. As to the usage of atomism, this has been around philosophy for some time. It almost takes on the character of metaphor, although intended to mean more than that, I think. Balance between the individual and the collective seems counterintuitive, even when a plurality of influences, political and cultural, push for conformity as a social cure-all. It is not and never was such, IMHO. Orwellians, beware.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-14264998633458625272023-01-07T15:47:01.033-05:002023-01-07T15:47:01.033-05:00Your methodological localism is interesting but yo...Your methodological localism is interesting but you should emphasize its dynamics rather than its balance between tendencies.<br /><br />The mind can be seen as an assembly of representations. Some strive to resemble each other —the memes— because their ownership is recognized as external or shared. Others strive to remain individual —the identity, the self—. These two poles of representation are in permanent conflict. They dominate in turn and determine behavior that is sometimes individualistic, sometimes collectivist. Individualists tend to recruit other identical individuals in order to attract the collective—groupism. Collectivists tend to listen to different individuals to better emancipate the collective.<br /><br />In all of us, this phenomenon is the ever-evolving conflict between 'I am one' and 'Be part of'. The same principle is found at the root of the conflict between atomism and holism. Atomism as radical independence is not sustainable. If the independence between atoms —of any kind— were complete, how would they relate? Individual and collective are attractors and not physical realities. The conflict sometimes pushes us towards one and sometimes towards the other. An individual can do nothing without a collective ready to receive her. The fashion for wokism demonstrates the inefficiency of individual enterprise when collectivism breaks down: only influence groups form. No transformation of the collective is possible. It disappears, replaced by individualist anarchy.<br /><br />The solution is not to seek a balance between individualism and collectivism but on the contrary to reinforce the power of the conflict, to make it more reactive and more finely adjusted to each context. Heighten our sensitivity between 'I am one' and 'Be part of'. By strengthening each of these two poles. Conflict is only productive between strong individuals and a strong collective. Balance is a soft center, a quagmire where it is difficult to move around and know if you are in the best possible place.Jean-Pierre Legroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08115134051153641240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-43580865532408190162023-01-07T14:30:15.235-05:002023-01-07T14:30:15.235-05:00Seems like John Searle would be interested in this...Seems like John Searle would be interested in this. Probably Sam Harris as well. I have long been interested in the arguments, pro and con, free will. The discussion presented regarding individualist and collectivist positions has helped my understanding of the conundrum. Have read a little of Fodor; not enough to connect his view(s) on this subject. Let's just say I lean towards the individualist side of the coin. Thanks for the well-thought and written article. This blog has captured my attention with a number of pieces.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-23018000611412917942023-01-06T19:31:24.300-05:002023-01-06T19:31:24.300-05:00There is a famous sociologist with a blog called &...There is a famous sociologist with a blog called 'The Sociological Eye'. I think to understand social action what is needed is someone in the action or close to the action. We don't need Mr. Leviathan on his crummy throne or Mr. Doubt everything the world is but a dream.<br />I would no sooner want a computer or computer programmer tell me what's really going on.<br />How about Goffman or Mills or even Tom Wolfe or Henry James, someone with a sharp eye who can dress the partHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.com