2011.02.12 - The Individual and the Group - A Goodreads Thread

I have been a participant in an interesting discussion, in a Goodreads thread, on the psychological problem of societal fixes being best addressed by systemic changes (laws and the like) or through individual change as prescribed by C.G. Jung. Robert is pro-systemic, and cites the civil rights movement of MLK. I, siding with Jung, distrust the long term effectiveness of systemic fixes, and also cite MLK.

ROBERT:  Emotion makes me want to agree [with you, egajd, that systemic change comes about from personal change], but rational examination makes me disagree. Here's the deal, with as much brevity as I can muster. J[ung] was wrong on this point. You can not heal systemic problems by fixing individuals. Moreover, systemic fixes will not work without genuine inner change on the part of at least a critical mass of individuals.

This is not an either/or question...rather,it deserves a both/and answer.

Take, for example, the civil rights struggle. There is no way that systemic problem would have been addressed even as well as it has been without legal, governmental, organizational...yes systemic action. There is still far to go on this issue, but there has been much progress, and it wouldn't have happened if it were left to the individual.

Sure, in "theory" (pardon the pun) if enough individuals were fully integrated and whole, then the issue might dissolve away. The fact is, that ain't gonna happen. And that's the problem with societal issues.

So...again...J was wrong on this. It takes both.

I liked Robert's argument, but was not convinced by it. So I responded with:

EGAJD: Curiously enough, my emotion wants me to agree with you, but my rational examination makes me disagree. It would be nice if group hugs had long term results. And I'm not saying that for immediate triage or palliative care, group social remedies may be required, or cannot spark a personalized revolution. But in the long run, without a personal revolution that changes the quality of the individuals within the system, the system will revert back, more or less, to what was before. For example, MLK's movement was a great step forward for equality of blacks in the USA in this century, following failed earlier emancipation movements. But the nature of how each individual has retained or shed his or her racism is the measure whether or not equality has been achieved within the society. And so, when MLK's movement wasn't quite successful, the group solution was affirmative action and name changes. Regardless of the 'correctness' of this approach as a solution to equality failure, the fact that it was needed after freedom walks is telling: without the individuals being 'fixed,' movies will continue with the inside jokes about Afro-Americans catching cabs and future variations of freedom walks and affirmative actions will be required. And will continue to be required until the individuals that constitute the group are no longer racist. And that change is done effectively with one person at a time, not because it is made a socially responsible or just edict. Self delusion is rarely erased by the preacher or philosopher sermonizing — they are more likely to simply shift the delusion.

And now, after all this talk and putting of words into J, I get to cite from him:

We are still so uneducated that we actually need laws from without, and a task-master or Father above, to show us what is good and the right thing to do. And because we are still such barbarians, any trust in the laws of human nature seems to us dangerous and unethical naturalism. Why is this? Because under the barbarian's thin veneer of culture the wild beast lurks in readiness, amply justifying his fear. But the beast is not tamed by locking it in a cage. There is no morality without freedom . When the barbarian lets loose the beast within, that is not freedom, but bondage.

Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. Princeton: Princeton University Press, par 357.

Group fixes are a form of bondage used to mask the beast, not tame it. Which is why the group can very easily become a mob, and group fixes become ... problematic.

Of course, Robert wasn't satisfied by my iron-clad argument! He responded:

ROBERT: Huh? That's precisely the opposite of what I was saying. Your filters appear to be getting a little too thick, my friend (:-)

But the nature of how each individual has retained or shed his or her racism is the measure whether or not equality has been achieved within the society.

I completely disagree. It is one measure, but not THE measure. There are still many racists in our society, but the systemic, organizational changes that have been put in place are a significant step forward. Again...the individual insight is very important, but with or without it there has been progress. Moreover, the institutional changes influence the individuals. I realize you might not like to admit that, but it is plainly true from my perspective.

I, being a bit of a sophist, and a verbose one at that, replied with:

EGAJD: Yes, my contrariness was deliberate. I was gently pointing out that rationality is problematic — it is confounded, distorted and/or abused by the boundary or initial conditions upon which the logic is placed. Raymond Smullyan plays very humorously with the problem of logic and rationality as it applies to the real world in his very fine book 5000 BC and other Philosophical Fantasies. JR Saul more seriously explores this in Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West.

And I do (did!) admit that institutional changes may influence individuals. But until that influence on the individual is on a significant percentage of the individuals, the systemic changes, even if very forcibly enforced will be, and have been historically, surface gloss only. When the ruling structure of the Eastern Bloc fell apart, the first thing that the Czechs and Slovaks started doing was killing each other: the forced rule of peace that had 'united' them as a country was only effective so long as the task masker was there to ensure compliance to the rules. As soon as the law left, the 'old' way of thinking came to the fore. The individuals had not been changed.

And I am not convinced that individuals change more readily, completely or honestly if it is done more or less coercively. Take a look at the push back MLK's movement got, and after that affirmative action. Even the need to discuss extirpating Mark Twain's literature from discussion because he used the 'n' word is... is... I have no way to describe that. And I note that here I have indeed felt coerced to censor myself, and in that action I am violating not only my respect for the history of the English language, but am also condescending to the intelligence of African-Americans! But this is seriously being discussed in halls of academe as if it were meaningful! Worse, I am being delusional if I believe truly that expunging such words from the lexicon of English will effect social change — it does not require epithets to be disrespectful and so removing them will not remove whatever disrespect they carry, because the disrespect is outside of the language.

These kinds of philosophical leadership vs individual ideas were very pointedly, but humorously explored by Chuang Tzu's Wandering on the Way,

and by Lao-Tzu in The Tao Te Ching.

For example:

1 (38)

The person of superior integrity
          does not insist upon his integrity;
For this reason, he has integrity.
The person of inferior integrity
          never loses sight of his integrity;
For this reason, he lacks integrity.

The person of superior integrity takes no action,
          nor has he a purpose for acting.
The person of superior humaneness takes action,
          but has no purpose for acting.
The person of superior righteousness takes action,
          and has a purpose for acting.
The person of superior etiquette takes action,
          but others do not respond to him;
Whereupon he rolls up his sleeves
          and coerces them.

Therefore,
     When the Way is lost,
          afterward comes integrity.
     When integrity is lost,
          afterward comes humaneness.
     When humaneness is lost,
          afterward comes righteousness.
     When righteousness is lost,
          afterward comes etiquette.

Now,
     Etiquette is the attenuation of trustworthiness,
          and the source of disorder.
     Foreknowledge is but the blossomy ornament of the Way,
          and the source of ignorance.

For this reason,
     The great man resides in substance,
          not in attenuation.
     He resides in fruitful reality,
          not in blossomy ornament.
Therefore,
     He rejects the one and adopts the other.

Chapter 1 of Victor H. Mair's translation.

This Goodreads' thread was, in general, very interesting.

Rose added an interesting book recommendation, Crowds and Power by Elias Cannetti. 

And Herman cited a great translation of the classic story of Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream.