We humans form groups. We are not merely indivdual units; it is only in our forming group identities greater than ourselves that we have been able to accomplish anything that we are proud to call human. There are different levels of these units.
Family was a major one once upon a time. Now we spread our families across the lands. I posit that family is missing from many peoples sense of group membership to the extent that it once played and that many of us try to fill that void.
Tribe was another significant identity once upon a time. A kinship at least. Also mostly missing today.
So we fall upon religious identification and nationhood … but these are so diffuse as to be unsatisfying to many. We look to find groups to be part of: Dopers or whatever.
How many of these are granfalloons? Group memberships without meaning. (Book of Bokon by way of Vonnegut) And are any karasses? Those who we are actually tied to by fate. What effect does the lack of tight social groupings, of extended families and tribal type relationships, have on culture and behavior today?
Sounds like something one would read in a morality tale advising against individualism. I like your OP and want to respond to it, but I’m stuck on that part. What evidence do you have that this is true? I’ve done plenty of things in my life that I’m proud of that have nothing to do with an “identity greater tham myself”, even though I’ll gladly admit that some of the greatest joy a human can experience is to share something important or significant with a loved one.
Nah, no paen against individualism, just a basic observation.
The individual human has a remarkable brain, but not so much more remarkable than a dolphin’s, smaller than a whale’s, and smaller than a Neandertal’s. What modern humans have accomplished we have accomplished not by superior individual intelligence but by the development and exploitation of culture and society. We have no need to reinvent the wheel every time. Society, group structures, and communication within group structures, allow every individual to benefit from the group’s past achievements and to build upon them - to take an idea already extant and rotate it, twist it, and translate so that it becomes applicable upon a new domain. And then throw it back into the pool for others to pick up and reapply later. Without our group identities we’d still be individuals constantly figuring out how to make the first tool all over again.
Just as much so is that much of our most impresive behavior is driven by a desire to position ourselves within our groups … what is an artist without an observer, an actor without an audience? What are ethics without consideration of the effects of behavior on others within the group?
I am glad that you found the op interesting. I feared that my ideas were a bit ill formed. They are triggered by the anarchy thread in which some posit that we are exclusively individual units and diminish (at least) the relevance of group structures, and by the two threads about Jewish identity and what/who determines it. Together they made me wonder about the place of group memberships in today’s world and how it has changed over time and with what consequence. We are a much more globally connected and intermixing world now than ever before; it must have consequences for group identifications and that must have consequences on individual needs for belonging and thus upon behaviors.
Like John Mace, I am hung up on that statement in the OP as well. I do not identify as a part of a group, such as family, tribe or nation. My identity rests solely on me as an individual.
Furthermore, my relationships with other are not tempered in any way by any form of group identity (I would argue that using anything other than pure individualism could be seen as a root cause of racism, sexism whateverism).
Havign said that, you are correct in saying that our cultures do help us to ‘not re-invent the wheel’ and that the dawning global culture will enhance the sharing of ideas and information.
I do not, however agree that our membership of any society or culture means that we have a type of group identity in that repect however.
For example, one does not choose to belong to a particular family. One may in fact be almost totally different from other family members. Grouping such people together, for reasons of identity, would seem to be a gross error of judgement.
The same could be said of nations. One does not choose the nation of ones birth, anymore than one chooses their skin colour, sexuality or gender. I would say that we belittle the individual by lumping people together basd on any of these abitrary concepts.
An ex-cow-orker of mine named Bill Johnson received an invitation to join the Bill Johnson Society – an organization of people whose name is some variant of William Johnson. There was also a Bob Jones society. Maybe these are granfalloons.
So, unwritten, you are individual without any need to belong to a group of any kind. I take that at your word, but I’d maintain that you are an exception. Not that many (especially those raised within American culture) wouldn’t like to claim such a virtue. The rugged indidualist. The maverick. The Clint Eastwood “man with no name.” It is an appealing image. But most of us, I think, have a need to belong and it drives all sorts of behaviors both admirable and not so admirable. We are willing to sacrifice for the good of the group. For family above kin (even though I am very different from my siblings, and two of them haven’t talked to me for years, I would still be willing to sacrifice substantially for them if it came up … and I don’t have good reason why, other than that they are my family), for kin above “nation”, and usually for nation above world. My Dad, who certainly was a macho rugged individualist, always looked to see if there were any other Seidmans in whatever town we travelled in.
Yes december. Such a club is a classic granfalloon. And many others exist besides Vonnegut’s “Hoosiers”. There is a Betty club. And those who find kinship on SDMBs. Are there more of these granfalloons now that the extended family’s role is so diminished?
I wouldn’t call this a granfelloon. It was many years since I read Cat’s Cradle, but If I remember correctly there’s a group missed in Vonnegut’s gentle sarcasm: people who seek out a group because the realy do share something. A belief, an attitude etc.
I read and post in GD because most participants in this forum are curious yet skeptical, two qualities I value highly. My brother told me about the SDMB because he knew I would appreciate its incessant “cite, please”, pushing you to substantiate and be critical about your own views.
Despite what I may have said at one point or another, you’re all a bunch of pretty well read and broadly informed people. The kind I don’t find walking into my local bakery. Nice people at the corner store, but just not my tribe…
Are there more of these granfalloons now that the extended family’s role is so diminished?