Pretentious Crap
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
vimothy
yurp
Because it seems to me that if identity is a negotiation between the individual and everything else, even if the individual remains constant, everything else changes, and thus the identity constructed by/forced upon the individual will be different.
People aren't necessarily different, but their imaginary worlds, their social worlds, their political worlds, etc, etc, are changing.
People aren't necessarily different, but their imaginary worlds, their social worlds, their political worlds, etc, etc, are changing.
"hard to imagine" is the key phrase here.
it is accepted by scholars of archaelogy, anthropology, etc., that social organization was drastically different 10,000 years ago -- and that our way of life, is a very recent and very brief phenomenon. it is hard for us to imagine because we know of, and have never experienced, any other way.
please, everyone who is interested in this and have not done so, listen to that short chapter on the Dobe...
another good reference for "the particular 20th C construction of individuality" would obviously be the Century of the Self series of BBC documentaries...
IdleRich
IdleRich
I can't listen at work I'm afraid. I'll try and catch it some other time.
I've seen it and it's fantastic to watch but I wouldn't really say it amounts to a coherent argument.
Anyways, I accept that point about how it's hard to imagine the society of thousands of years ago and for that reason I'm not sure that they are the most worthwhile to talk about. That's why I focused on the 20th century quote - when you read a book by Jane Austen or any of the other classics that are constantly being adapted for tv there seems to be something going on in the mind of the author that people today can identify with quite easily - hence all the adaptations. I take from this that Jane Austen and presumably others of her period had an experience of life that was similar to those who watch her adaptations and read her books today and that this similar experience of life includes a concept of individuality.
see, that is precisely why the studies of currently functioning band-level societies, the members of which live the way our ancestors did for, depends on who you ask, 2 - 4 million years, are so important.
but it certainly makes a compelling case for the rise of unique and in many ways unprecedented ways of social organization/communication/brainwashing/construction of the self. application of psychoanalytical theory on a mass scale and the birth of PR/advertising as we know it... pretty specific to our times if you ask me.
EDIT:
ha, answered your question before even reading it taht's how good i am
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well these seem like things which might cause a different construction of individuality or might not - and when I compare the concept that those around me appear to have of theirselves as an individual to the concept that an author of a book written before the events in question appears to have of his or her self I conclude that they did not.
this bit is not really well thought out, but i would say off the top that "the 20th century construction of the individual" is not what it seems at all: for all its talk of individual freedom, there is actually very little of it experientially speaking; and that our times will probably be characterized by an underlying conformity and obeying of implicit laws (in Zizekian terms) to future historians.
also like the crazy Slovenian says: "we lack the very language to articulate our lack of freedom"
also like the crazy Slovenian says: "we lack the very language to articulate our lack of freedom"
i can't find any faults with that.
but the flux is not so frequent or so wildly random that we can not perceive general historical periods with distinctive characteristics.
and what we are trying to determine, in as much as is possible ( both for people deep in the forest [to see the damned trees], as well as for online procrastinators who really should be working), is the general shape of the evolution of this flux in the bigger historical perspective, and the relationship of the current permutation to previous ones.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
This sounds like a mission to make massive generalisations, with predictable ends in mind.
I disagree that modern Western society is unable to provide the conditions for a fulfilling life, notwithstanding (the obsession with) the obsession with buying and selling.
I disagree that modern Western society is unable to provide the conditions for a fulfilling life, notwithstanding (the obsession with) the obsession with buying and selling.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
I guess (bit late to ask perhaps) I'm not totally sure what you mean by the construction of the individual. Can you elaborate?
For the first one, what do you mean by identity? Is it the same as "the construction of the individual"?
I think that no-one would deny that personality can be affected by external conditions. The question is whether the changes that such external pressure can cause are fundamental enough to change not just personality but the nature of what personality even is (and in fact to actually call it into existence where it didn't exist before).
So I agree or disagree with point one depending on how key a determinant your sociocultural factors are.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
This is the nub of the matter.
ah ok the guinea pig thinks this conversation is useless... so why not just leave us to pursue our futility and go play your horn?
and dunno about you but a 20 hour work week seems a lot more fulfilling than a 40 hour work week...
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Well you're making points that are too general.
It depends what work you do - I gladly work more than I need to because I enjoy and see the point of what I have to do. I think, by and large, that I am fulfilled - despite living in a modern, Western, capitalist society. And I haven't bought a shiny car to achieve this either. I don't even have an ipod or a telly.
Last edited: