The Big Lie – Selfishness and Greed
Dr. Michael Sosteric | Dec 01, 2012 | Comments 18
Do so-called authorities know more about us than we know about ourselves? “The Big Lie” asserts that authorities, in the form of theologians and academics, seem to think they do. Further, those authorities tend to take a dim view of human nature—and those negative perspectives often produce very negative consequences. Because authorities are cloaked in a mantle of institutional legitimacy, their opinions are perceived as being more truthful than those of non-authorities. Nevertheless, “The Big Lie” argues that the truth is often at variance with the opinions of authorities. Be skeptical! (Timothy M.)
Hi there.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself.
I was born into a Catholic family and when I was a young, defenseless, trusting child needing lots of love, attention, and positive regard, I had to listen to Catholic priests (and by extension my mom) tell me what a rotten, stinking, low life loser I was. Begotten from a long line of low life losers going all the way back to that witch Eve who tricked the weak Adam into eating the forbidden apple, the priests told me that I was little better than cosmic dust. Sitting in the pew in a long line of the faithful I listened to “the man” standing behind the pulpit tell me that yes God loved me but even so, if I didn’t apologize for something I never did (i.e. original sin), straighten up, and do what I was told (i.e. follow orders/commandments) I’d be cast into a burning fire where I would suffer unimaginable torment forever and ever amen. I was bad, I was evil by nature, dirty, sinful, cosmic chaff, and only by dint of hard work, grace, submission and terror of authority (disguised as respect) could I ever redeem myself and be rewarded with a place in God’s exclusive little private club he arrogantly called “heaven.”
Glad I got that out.
Honestly, I believed the lies of Church for almost a decade of my young life. The priests were convincing after all. They had special robes, wore special rings, stood behind special podiums, and quoted from a fancy, big book they called “the bible.” I was young, I was small, I was weak, I was impressionable and boy did they impress me.
I believed them because I was a child and I trusted the adults.
I believed them because they said they knew the Truth.
I believed them because they said if I didn’t believe them, and I didn’t do exactly what I was told, God would burn me in hell for all eternity.
Anyway, when I was a teenager I gave up that lie. I realized, even if I couldn’t verbalize it, how twisted the priests stories were. It was psychological and emotional abuse by any other name, and so I walked away from it. Of course, still young and uninformed I didn’t give up belief altogether. As a young man I walked right out of religion and right into the hallowed halls of my local university where, caving into the same need to believe, I heard pretty much the same thing from my professors as I had heard from the priests. Sitting in a chair in a line of the faithful I listened to “the man” standing behind the lectern telling me that I was little more than a dirty rotten ape, violent and irredeemable, descended from a long line of similarly rotten and violent apes, driven by Freudian instinct and acting out my disgusting sexual and aggressive tendencies to the detriment of all around me. According to Freud if it wasn’t for repressive society I’d eat my own children if given half a chance. According to science I was worthless, I was violent, I was dirty. I was evolutionary chaff and only by proving myself worthy/strong in some ridiculous evolutionary struggle would I be deserving of reward, and would my “genes” pass on to the next generation.
Sound familiar?
Now honestly, I believed the stories of science a lot longer than I believed the lies of the Churches. The priests of science were more convincing after all. They had special robes, wore special rings, and stood behind special podiums where they impressed upon me the depth and breadth of their learned nature by quoting from not ONE big book, but from many. It was an impressive display of erudite, empirical, edification and what can I say, I was young, I was small, I was weak, I was impressionable and boy did they impress me.
I believed them because I was a young student and I trusted the erudite professors.
I believed them because they said they knew the Truth.
I believed them because they said if I didn’t believe them, and repeat exactly what they said on my final exams, I wouldn’t pass their tests and I’d just end up working poor, or worse, destitute on the streets.
And besides, I wanted to believe.
I wanted to know.
I wanted to have answers to all the big questions that had plagued my mind since I was a young lad and so I believed what the priests of Science said. And besides, the priests of Science did seem to have it in the bag more than the priests of the Church.
They said, don’t trust any other authorities but us!
They said, be empirical.
They said, be logical.
They said, observe and report.
And for the longest time everything was kosher. I didn’t trust authority (unless it was backed by an advanced graduate degree), I tried to be empirical, I strove for logic, and I observed and reported and in all that activity the story that I had been told about human nature by the priests of Science, despite its weird similarity to the church version, seemed to be accurate.
But then I had children, and I observed them, and the more I observed them more I became confused because what I was observing didn’t make any sense.
It didn’t fit into what I “knew” to be true.
For example, I had been told by priests of the Church and Science that my children were greedy and violent little scoundrels, little more cosmic rejects, descended apes, that I had to repress and control and train and enslave otherwise everything would go to hell.
But I didn’t see that in them.
Take greed as an example.
I’d been told by priests and scientists that I was greedy by nature. Original sin and evolution had made it so that I always wanted more. It was my fundamental spiritual flaw, the product of an evolutionary struggle. It was put their by God “the father” to test me or, if you are of a more scientific bent, put their by Mother Gaia to give me evolutionary advantage. However it got there, everybody agreed it was there. So, if I accumulated more and more while others around me had less and less, well all I was doing was responding to my “true” inner nature, proving my worth in the eyes of God, and winning the struggle to survive.
The man with the most toys wins, right?
That’s what I was told so, when I had kids, I expected to see this behavior from them, greedy little monsters that they were. But honestly, I didn’t see it. As it turns out, and much to my Catholic and scientific surprise, my kids don’t have a greedy bone in their body. I look and look and look but I cannot find it. In fact, it appears quite the opposite. Rather than worrying about having more, more, more, their primary concern is with absolute equality and they expend an incredible amount of psychological and emotional energy trying to manifest that equality.
It’s true!
If one thinks the other has a bit more ice cream, or a little more chocolate, or has received a little more love, or a little more attention, all hell breaks loose.
I see it every day.
If my children do not achieve absolute equality in all things, they fight until they do.
And to them it doesn’t matter how small the inequality. When I make Ichiban noodles (sometimes ignoring the fact that it contains MSG) and if one of my kids feels that the other has even one more noodle, or one ounce more broth, they scream, they grab, they protest, they cry ,they wail, the gnash their teeth, they kick, and they complain until they feel absolute equality is established, at which point they happily slurp down their noodles.
As a parent it is frustrating as hell, not to mention confusing.
If happiness and contentment only exists in our home when everybody is included and treated equally, where is the greed and the selfishness?
Is there something wrong with my children, I wonder.
Are they abnormal?
Are they broken?
Have they violated their divine or natural nature, as defined by the priests of this world?
Personally, I think not.
Personally, I think they are doing just what they were wired to do, strive for equality and justice.
Egg on the faces of the priests if you ask me.
Now as a parent there’s two things I can do in this situation. I can accept the facts that my kids want absolute equality and give them that, or not. If I accept the fact then I give them equal love, equal treats, and equal treatment. If I accept that then I won’t privilege the boy over the girl, the first born over the last, or the stronger one over the weaker one. If I do that, if I honor what appears to be to be the natural/spiritual/divine order of things, then everything is calm and everybody is happy. But if I don’t do that, if I violate the powerful instinctual need for equality, or the divine inner self that says “love me and honor me equally,” bad things begin happen. The kids fight and scream, they begin competing for attention, they begin hording whenever they can, and the whole household descends into fetid, funky, pathology which can only be managed with repressive controls and which descends, by degrees, into the earthly representation of hellish suffering.
And as any parent with eyes open will tell you, I’m not over exaggerating.
The drive for equality and fair treatment is powerful and when not honored, a disturbance in the force, results. When that happens, when instincts and nature are violated, repression, indoctrination, and violence are the inevitable outcomes. I yell at my kids, I tell them life isn’t fair, I banish them to their rooms for being so “unreasonable” and “demanding,” I send them to church where the priests justify, or to school where the teachers indoctrinate, and I ask them again and again, “why can’t you just ‘get it’.” In this process their natural drive for equality is suppressed and oppressed and eventually, despite abortive and comical attempts at adolescent rebellion, they learn to accept the lie, but at a serious cost, I believe. When your natural instincts towards equality are violated, pathology results. Just look at the United States, one of the most unequal countries in the world and one where psychopathology is out of control.
You can check it yourself in the statistics.
Crime, drug addiction, eating disorders, obesity, and a culture soaked in anti-depressants and anti-psychotics must lead us to question the moral, philosophical, and scientific foundation of our view of human nature.
I mean really…
You don’t need me to point it out.
Unless you want to write off the growing pathology with a magical sweep of your hand you have to consider the possibility that we’re doing something wrong.
Of course I’m speculating here.
It is a big causal leap from a violation of our natural instincts for equality (wow, doesn’t that sound like a sacrilege on so many levels) to the toxic emotional and psychological soup of modern day society, but it’s an interesting hypothesis don’t ya think?
Not to mention totally, yranoitulover.
But so what?
And who cares?
Personally, I think (and feel) the idea that we might have a natural “instinct” for equality deserves a lot more attention I mean, what if the spiritual and scientific structure of our modern moral and cosmological sensitivity is nothing more than a carefully contrived justification for inequality and privilege?
What if it’s just a case of the priests telling the peasants to accept their lot.
You know, divine Right of Kings and God wants it that way or the rich deserve what they get because they are stronger, faster, more capable than you.
Inequality is natural and inevitable, God likes it and its good for the evolutionary scramble, so deal with it.
I believe the idea is worthy consideration and if you ask me its at least as significant and revolutionary as the notion that the Sun doesn’t revolve around The Earth and if true will require a pretty significant recant and revision of a number of academic disciplines. I know it sounds outrageous, improbable, even impossible, but lo and behold it’s already happening. View the video in this article and watch the author of a 1970 book RECANT the dubious science that led him to coin the term “alpha male.” As a sociologist I must ask, was it pure ideology after all?
As for me, I’m not buying it anymore. I can see with my own eyes. Watching my little children I see that it’s at best a horrendous scholarly mistake and at worst a big fat lie. Of course, reading this short article you may not be willing to go so far but at the very least you should raise some questions. Better yet, think and observe for yourself and come to your own conclusions. And remember, just because some priest said it, or some scientist said it, doesn’t make it so. You have to understand, from the the recent recanting of the term Alpha Male to all the ignored researched on the negative impact of competition, it would seem that scientists are as ideological and error prone as everybody else.
Filed Under: Featured Articles • Lead • Michael Sosteric • The Big Lie
About the Author: I'm a sociologist at Athabasca University where I coordinate,amongst other things, the introductory sociology courses (Sociology I and Sociology II). FYI I did my dissertation in the political economy of scholarly communication (you can read it if you want). It's not that bad. My current interests lie in the area of scholarly communication and pedagogy, the sociology of spirituality and religion, consciousness research, entheogens, inequality and stratification, and the revolutionary potential of authentic spirituality. The Socjourn is my pet project. It started as the Electronic Journal of Sociology but after watching our social elites systematically dismantle the potential of eJournals to alter the politics and economies of scholarly communication, I decided I'd try something a little different. That something is The Socjourn, a initiative that bends the rules of scholarly communication and pedagogy by disregarding academic ego and smashing down the walls that divide our little Ivory Tower world from the rest of humanity. If you are a sociologist or a sociology student and you have a burning desire to engage in a little institutional demolition by perhaps writing for the Socjourn, contact me. If you are a graduate student and you have some ideas that you think I might find interesting, contact me. I supervise graduate students through Athabasca Universities MAIS program.
What to know about the nature of money, the value of money, and money's role in our modern economies of exchange, then download The Rocket Scientists' Guide to Money and the Economy and let the truth set you free. [download]
Sociology for the revolutionary in you. Sociology 288: Social Movements from Athabasca University is designed to teach you about social movements, why they emerge, why they fail, and what you can do in the global struggle for equality and justice. Learn from the successful examples like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and avoid common pitfalls and errors. Textbooks included in the price of the course.
Interesting article. I just have to say that, aside from the epistemological errors made in it, which are legion (empiricism? Really? And you’re not a Creationist, but not an Evolutionist either? Is there a 3rd way you’ve discovered in your Sociological ivory tower?), the article makes much of greed, but, as anyone with kids knows, or anyone that knows anything about Marxist theory knows, it’s not ‘greed’ that is your enemy, but ‘envy’.
Witness: your prime thesis is that everybody would be better off if we all had the same things – equality in everything, particularly in your case, possessions, what is commonly termed ‘wealth redistribution’. This is not born out of greed, but out of envy. You have what I don’t, and so I’ll cry down the sky to get it.
I mean, are you serious, dude? What you’re really interested in is political intervention to fix ‘the big problem’ as you see it, and you’re hoping that an article on some web-site is going to bring the much needed ‘Revolution’.
As PJ O’Rourke said so beautifully, “Get a job, goofy-tooth.” Maybe when you start paying taxes and see most of your wealth redistributed to pay for the bureaucracy needed to make sure your wealth is redistributed ‘fairly’ (a term used but never explained to the people who see their wealth redistributed), you’ll start to think about the intrusions into your life you’re really asking for in your essay.
Ok Mr Olaf, you seem to have missed not only the point of the article, but the meaning of some of the words you use. Let me explain the article for you in a bit more detail so you are clear about what I am saying, or not saying.
First of all, there are no “epistemological errors” in the article. In case you are unaware, epistemology is the sub-discipline of philosophy concerned with how we know the truth about things. If you understand “epistemology” you will know that there are different epistemological perspectives on how we arrive at TRUTH. The basic question that epistemologists ask is “how do you know what you know.”
Personally, I think there are two broad epistemological positions you can take. One is FAITH and the other EMPERICISM. To my eyes faith is basically authority based epistemology. People who use FAITH determine the truth of things basically by saying “I believe because [so and so] says its so.” The [so and so] is basically an appeal to authority. Authority of a priest, authority of a scientist, authority of the bible, authority of God, and so on. In a lot of cases that sort of epistemology may be appropriate, as for example in relationship between student and teacher, but not always. FAITH based epistemologies have weaknesses, not the least of which is that they are open to some serious abuse.
On the other hand we have empiricism. Empiricism is basically evidence based epistemology. I believe something is true because I CAN SEE IT WITH MY OWN EYES (or with the help of instrumentation). On this side of the fence we believe things because we see the truth of it reflected in reality. This epistemological approach is the dominant approach in science. It is also appropriate in most cases I feel (you always want to pay attention to reality, after all), but it is also open to abuse. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. If you’re smart enough you can always use evidence to prove any point you want. You may have to ignore counter-evidence, or take too narrow a focus, but it can be one.
Of course, there is a thing which I like to call “epistemological bleed.” (and yes, feel free to cite me on that). Even in a case like science where the epistemological position is empirical, FAITH and AUTHORITY can bleed in. That was actually the point of my article, which you seem to have missed entirely. I tried to point out in my article, AUTHORITY and FAITH can play a role in science, especially when we start believing what the professor says without using our own two eyes to verify. Obviously given what I said in my article I think epistemological bleed is a problem not the least of which is because when the bleed occurs it tends to give otherwise highly questionable theoretical statements (like ideological statements about human nature) the credibility and force that science (which we all have been taught to believe is above FAITH based epistemologies) can give.
Now, am I making an epistemological error (or errors, as you say) in my argument as you suggest?
Sorry, but no. What I am doing is making an epistemological argument. I am saying, on the one hand, that science and scientists can make mistakes, witness the recent retraction of the term “alpha male”. I am also saying that there is this thing called “epistemological bleed” and therefore we would be wise to not take things on faith, even when a scientists says them. In other words, USE YOUR OWN TWO EYES to verify the Truth. This is basically what I said in the article. You want to know about human nature, use your own two eyes.
Now despite methodological issues about sample size that your average 2nd year university student, relying on an average 2nd year methods text, might raise, I am proposing an EMPERICAL epistemology. Use your own eyes and look at the evidence. In fact, it is a very strong statement. I am calling for what I like to call “democratic empiricism.”
You got two eyes?
You got a brain?
USE THEM to verify what you’ve been told about things. Don’t just believe something because a priest said it, or a scientist said it, or it is written in a book, USE YOUR OWN EYES. IOW, be empirical. You don’t have to be a scientist so, let’s create a world filled with democratic empiricism I say (of course, authority figures are not going to like what I’m saying here, and may bluster and blow as a result).
Anyway, that is the main point of the article.
Now it is true, to make that point I invoke a discussion of HUMAN NATURE. In the article I make some very strong claims about human nature, claims that apologists of the status-quo are not going to like. I basically suggest that our views of human nature are erroneous and ideological and I make an empirical case for it, not by relying on the stodgy and biased psychological research on the topic, but by depending on the intelligence and ocular sophistication of parents all around the world. If you are a parent and you want to know about human nature, don’t believe the priests and the scientists, look for the evidence around you and decide for yourself. Who needs an elite scientist (elite empiricism) to tell tell us how our kids behave. We can see for ourselves if we trust our own eyes.
This is an epistemological position, and a valid one, and the main thrust of the article. IT is not an “error,” it is a position. A little bit more interesting than the “missionaries” position, but a position nonetheless.
Secondary to the whole epistemological argument I am making is the question of human nature. I admit, I wrote this article to be provocative and to make some statements not only about epistemology, but about human nature. To be perfectly forthright, I do believe what I said. I do believe that scientists have got it wrong. When it comes to gender and human nature, scientists are pretty much still clueless.
Read this article.
Scientists, it seems, can’t get the gender bias out of their research. So, how can we be trusted to comment on human nature? My answer? We can’t be. Although I do think that’s changing, slowly. Even now we see some recanting of concepts and revising of thinking. But we are not doing it fast enough in my mind. The article I wrote is intended to be an encouragement to a fundamental rethinking of human nature that I believe that we “in the academy” need to be engaged in.
So, to summarize, the article contains a) an invitation to democratic empiricism and b) an invitation to rethink human nature. What else?
Well, a third aspect of article is pure psychological speculation and theorization. In the article I theorize that our views of human nature are so misplaced that they are causing modern psychopathology. I know it is a huge leap, and I even say it is a huge leap, but it is food for thought, and something worth considering, especially since I personally am unaware of any body else suggesting that its our erroneous views of human nature that are at the root of modern psychopathology. You can blubber about that all you want but as a scientist, I have a right to speculate, and I have a right to bring that speculation before others. Of course, the speculation is usually done more formally in the “discussion” part of journal article, and because of that normally somebody like you wouldn’t be privy to the speculation, but but what can I say. I am for democratic empiricism and you can’t have that if you lock your scientific thinking inside a scholarly journal that only an university can afford to open.
And that is basically the article.
Now since I know you don’t want to put words in my mouth, let me quickly tell you what I’m not doing in this article. I am not saying that we should all have the same “things.” That’s absurd. I’m not a child (God, I hope you don’t treat all the other adults in your life like spoilt children). I don’t want a gun just because you have a gun. I don’t want a gun because I hate guns and violence and don’t want tools that facilitate that anywhere near me and my family. I also don’t want a Stradivarius violin. I can’t play violin so I believe that if there is a spare strat. kicking around, we should find a needy artist to give it to. I’m also happy in the house I got, with the things I have. They are personal and fit me just fine so I don’t know where you get off on making such an arrogant presumption.
I mean seriously.
What kinda pot are you smoking?
Neither, it should be said, am I saying we should have total financial equality. I believe money = labour (as my good friend Michael Sharp writes in this book here) and I know people don’t work equally hard, or long. Some people like to work more, some people like to work less. That’s cool. I admit I don’t buy into the gross economic inequality that has characterized life on this planet for so many thousands of years, and would like to see a more equitable distribution of this world’s financial resources, but total economic inequality I do not espouse.
Also, I’m definitely not saying we need bigger government. In fact, quite the opposite. If you were paying attention to my epistemological argument, and not just randomly peeing on anybody who you don’t agree with, you’d see I am ANTI-AUTHORITY. I don’t trust authority, I don’t believe it is necessary to functioning of society, and I believe it is often misused. And I believe this wherever I see authority present, in school, church, science, and government. So no, no, no a thousand times no. No more government intervention please.
Authority bad, freedom good.
Finally, you tell me that I am espousing forced redistribution. That’s another absurd statement based, I’m guessing, more on your fear and guilt than anything else. I’ll tell ya straight out, I don’t like force, and I do not believe we should force anybody to do anything they do not want to do. I do believe that we need wealth distribution, because I don’t believe that the rank global inequality we now have is healthy for anybody, but I would never FORCE that. I simply believe that the very rich should look at the world and see the system they put in place isn’t working, give back the money they are hoarding, make the changes they need to fix things up, and move on to building a better world. Amongst those changes there will have to be a redistribution of wealth and a revision of our economic system. Too much labour power (see RSG for a link between labour power and money) is horded right now. But I don’t want to force anybody to do anything. Like the Beatles sang, if violence is your gig, count me out. I think it should be done voluntarily in the interests of the people of this planet.
Finally, a couple of your own empirical errors need to be addressed.
First of all, I’m not a goofy tooth. I had my teeth fixed when I was a child. And while I’d like to be able to say you invoked the shameful and debilitating emotions of the child in grade five being victimized by the big, bad psychological bully, I’ve dealt with enough psychological bullies in my life to be pretty much immune from that kind of attack. Try a weaker opponent.
Second, I do know a thing or two about Marxist theory and no it’s not envy that’s the problem for Marx, it is greed. Trying to say I am envious is just your way of attempting to discredit my arguments. If you want to do that go ahead, but try to be less clumsy about it.
Third, I do pay taxes. In fact I pay a higher percentage of my taxes than say, Warren Buffet does. Personally I don’t mind paying taxes, especially when those taxes are put to positive civil uses like schools, roads, hospitals, human services, and such, but I do pay taxes. I guess maybe you thought I was a teenager or something.
And I guess that’s about it. You know, I don’t mind if you hang around this journal and make some comments and engage in discussion, but if you want to engage in a discussion, try to focus on the substantive issues, don’t put words in people’s mouths, and don’t let your own fear and guilt get in the way of rational discussion. This will make you look less like a rabid ideologue trying to define and control this discourse, and more like an interested student participating in an educational and enlightening dialogue. Your choice.
Anyway, if you want to continue your contribution, here are the main discussion points.
1) Epistemological argument for democratic empiricism.
2) Questions about human nature
3) Speculation about social pathology caused by ideologically based prescriptions about human nature.
Try and pay better attention next time.
Cheers
Dr. Mike
I wish my parents were as observational as you. I’ve fought with my older brother plenty as a child, always crying over things that he got that I couldn’t get. I grew up on hand-me-downs and forced to share everything with a sibling who is authoritatively greater than me (I’m Asian, so respecting elder siblings is a default discipline). I’ve felt oppressed most of my life and despite accepting the reality of it for what it is, I am still mildly depressed about my disposition. My parents don’t mean to be “unfair” with their love. They just did what was practical. Hand-me-downs were for reusing items that we don’t need duplicates of. Toys were bought for my older brother and expected to be shared with me. He would stubbornly hog the toys and attack me whenever he wants them back and I was usually forced to submit to his demands. When I cry, I was simply told to stop crying… and I do just that. Even as teenagers, we still kept a keen eye on who gets a bigger portion of a food item we’re supposed to share. Eventually, I had to give that up too because he’s a growing male and should be eating more. Anyway, before I drone on too long about how I agree with you, let me add two cents:
I study sociology on my leisure. I also have a strong interest in criminology. That being said, I think understanding how life can seem unfair and motivate some daring criminal acts from psychologically normal people is very well related to the thoughts mentioned in your article. Many criminals are normal people who are not “sinful” or “evil” by nature. They’re not even psychologically abnormal… although some may try to be pretend that they are for a lighter penalty. When a population of people end up in more unfortunate dispositions, they feel urged to act deviantly just to get what they feel is right… or so I think. Isn’t this why locations with a more impoverished population have higher crime rates?
I wouldn’t try to argue about what’s right or wrong… but there are so many social factors that contribute to supposedly undesired human behaviours. Some undesirable acts and thoughts can have its roots in the most innocent minds… and that’s when it seems like angels deserve to die. Many fictional stories of innocent protagonists making honest mistakes would demonstrate that quite well. So… what is morality again? Sorry, this is a pretty far gone tangent. Haha…
Personally I relate to everything that Mr. Sosteric argued and agree. I’ve been called a radical, trouble and more not worth mentioning, simply I have made numerous observations throughout my 65 years of my life.
I like your thoughtful response Dr. Mike. I mentioned during a Pol Sci discussion on 3 theorists, Rawls, Marshall and Oldenfield. My comment was that it might be a good idea to put a cap on the wealth an individual can have. Think about it; those who sit on boards of most all organizations, have donated funds towards the given institution which means they have control of what happens in that institution whether it be a school, hospital, organization…*government*? This is not to say that all boardmembers are hoarding control freaks. What I am saying is that there are people in high positions only because of thier lineage and not because of what they can bring to the table.
Inheritance and entitlement becomes the hand-me-downs of money to those family members who have no idea of what a real life is. When I say real life, I mean one where every day is a struggle for survival and my life is a cake walk compared to the economic standing of many families in the world. I have food, clothing and shelter and I am grateful for it.
How do we get there, that is, making the change to limit wealth in family lines? I have a hard time seeing them giving it back gracefully and willfully. How’s that gonna happen?
And while we are at it, Carmen’s comment about hand-me-downs got me to thinking about the over consumption of today. I too, grew-up wearing my older brother’s and sister’s clothing. My parents fed their children and sent us to private schools (breathe)on a single income in the early years and then both were employed when I began school. But we still lived fairly conservatively. Not so for most families today. California closets, vacations out of state…country?, iphones, computers… cable TV?
I read something the other day: How can you be satisfied with more when you are not happy with what you already have?
Interesting! However I wonder if you overlooked the fact that your children likely only fight about those inequalities which pertain to their own self-interest. For instance, I doubt arguments ensue and “all hell breaks loose” when one child comes to find that he received more noodles than his brother. I would be willing to bet that you never hear “I have more noodles than him, unfair!” Rather the argument gets started when one child notices, “He has more noodles than me!” While your children do seem inclined to have equality on the mind, they only enforce their views on the matter when they feel left out. Thus, while interesting, your example does not prove that humans are hardwired to strive for justice; rather it proves that humans are hardwired to fight to have as much as our neighbors, brothers, coworkers, etc. As a race, humans tend not to speak up over perceived inequalities when it is we who are privileged at the expense of others (unless called upon to defend our position), but we are quick to demur when we feel that we are the ones being neglected for the sake of another.
In a debate all sides should be fairly represented. The first commentator wishes to throw stones like in the middle ages. Dr. Mike and I have had discourses, within the realm of good sociology. I wish I had Lucy as my student. I think she is talking about Dr. Anne Rawls, the theorist. Had her for three courses. In a sociological debate, or discourse, blowing someone’s head off is not proper. I think a logical approach to such arguments is necessarry. I am no big scholar, but we are trained to be authoratative and sort of pushy on those who are not so endowed. Dr. Sosteric in the courses I took from him, taught me to be responsible in terms of the work i was producing. In essence, consider the feelings of the person you are debating with. Thank God we have Lucy to shed light on this. Even though her comments are about the material. Respectfully Robert
I disagree. As my children have continued to grow they more and more express an interest in justice and inequality. They often come home with questions about why the world is as it is, and what we can do about it. They worry about their friends who are poor, and the abuse that other children face, and relationship breakdown in the families of their peers, and so on. They even act to do something about it, challenging their peers and engaging in class discussions. One even suggested that we should go work on Sundays to help feed the homeless. So I don’t know, I’m still not seeing the “selfishness gene.”
I read some chimp studies some time ago that showed that the sorts of violent, domineering, greedy behaviours that certain people like to argue are “natural” behaviours in humans are environmentally cued. In situations of scarcity, chimps become greedy and violent and domineering, hoarding resources and pushing out the weak. However in situations of plenty they act quite opposite. I have no doubt there are genetically coded survival algorithms that are invoked when survival is at stake, but to generalize an entire behavioural repertoire from special cases seems a bit illogical. In any case, if anything this shows the importance of environment. Hypothesis? Selfishness is an invoked response that occurs when survival is an issue (real or perceived).
For humans of course, the problem isn’t scarcity. We solved that problem two hundred years ago. The problem now is a system designed with the accumulation of wealth and power in mind. Scarcity these days is imposed on people and if you want to talk human behaviour I guess we should start with the environments that are created by the economic systems that have been imposed on us, and what these systems do to people (i.e. what algorithms they invoke). That would seem to be a bit more sophisticated than simple statements that humans are “hardwired” this way or that.
What an article and what responses. Again much of what is being brought out, in my opinion, is what is wrong with sociology. Absolutes in science and philosphy come head to head in this article. Equality, Inequality, are all problems for the sociologist. Dr.Sosteric in a round about way makes similar claims as does Dr. Robert MacIver in his books “Society” and “Social Causation”. Epistemology and Empiricism are just concepts, but what do these approaches actually mean, in an approach that MacIver would embrace. Great job Dr. Sosteric.
Well, I read the article, so do the comments. I really found the motion “convincing” and more to the “truth” of human nature. If there is no problem, there is no solution! I mean we all live in a society where problems are not present, who even thinks about solutions? Thus, the fact that people fight to death to have (a big) portion of wealth is none but the sentiment that they they feel the other man owns what is his…or thinks so. So, even if that is not the case, he gets to believe that there is inequality, and so he has to fight for it. So, I suggest, there are two types of fight-for equality which both, I guess, seem similar but are different; One is what the mass, the judge, the government or the democracy believes to be right and the person deserves fight to get it back, and the second, the person, the people or the nation believes, yet may not endorsed by “others” that they have to have a particular (bigger) share of the wealth. You see, both fight because they “know”, “think” or “feel” there is inequality. As a result, fight is justified.
We also have to add fear to the factors related to human nature. just an example, i f my salary is one hundred box a month and that is enough to live with it and yet have the opportunity to save 5% of it, I will be happpy and think I have got it all. But what is I lose the job, what if next month 100 is not enough, and what if and what if? All that brings the notion of uncertainty which at the end provokes fear. Based on that, people, nations and even governments take precautionary measures, they steal money, kill people and invade countries which have portions of wealth set and ready. So uncertainty and fear cause people think of having more of the same item which may not be necessary right now, but who knows, may be in the near future very precious.
Human nature. Some coexisting factors would be socialization, attitude, overt behavior, and affect related to all of these.
I think this is very good article, I completely agree with Dr. Sosteric and I have a question. I just would like to now is it worth studying sociology? I would like to combine sociology and some language but I don’t know should I take up English or Spanish (which I’ve never learned)? I would really like to hear Your opinion.
Social Causation
I read a college paper that discussed a woman’s (the writer) obsession with body management, (meaning her outward appearance). One of the points she made about her obsession with her appearance was that it was rooted in taught behavior. Her great-grandmother was mentally ill and had to be institutionalized. Her great-grandfather could not take care of the daughters and sent them to live in the orphanage. When her grandmother came of age to be on her own, she realized her best asset was her appearance that would insure survival. This idea was passed on to three generations with a span of mothers to daughters to sisters onto cousins.
That’s some messy thinking patterns.
Somewhere along the line, like the author of the paper is suggesting, someone has to stop teaching (the behavior) through alternative behaviors that promote healthy body image.
Create a new norm.
Ideas about an individuals own body is or can be socially constructed.
It is worth studying Sociology? I think so. Sociologists can work with statistics, in marketing firms, can get trained as social workers, and so on. If you want my opinion, sociologists are some of the deepest and most critical thinkers on the planet (but I’m hugely biased here obviously). English is probably a better language to study.
Thank You very much. I like sociology and it is my favorite subject (I studied it last year and even read literature). I couldn’t decide which university to choose but now after Your opinion I finally think that I should do what I like instead of doing something just because I would have more money. Do You think that I should go study to capital city or some regional city which is closer? (I’m from Croatia)
Sociology is a great academic discipline. You should carefully choose what area you want to study in. There are so many sub-disciplines to choose, a great sociology counslor, would be helpful. For example, my areas are social psychiatry, social philosophy, and other related areas. Dr. Sosteric is right there is a lot that can come from a sociology education. Good luck Mateo.
Thank You, Your words are really encouraging. I’m almost 18 (still in high-school), and I think there is so much for me to learn in sociology. In Croatia we have first undergraduate and then graduate course, so later I’ll have to decide which part of sociology suits me in postgraduate study. Social psychiatry sounds interesting. This year I have also philosophy as a subject in high-school but somehow, I think, it is too much complicated and it has many unpractical terms.
[...] and academics have successfully made people feel worthless or think less of others. He writes in “The Big Lie – Selfishness and Greed,” “I listened to ‘the man’ standing behind the lectern telling me that I was little more than a [...]