One thing that tends to be forgotten by the current generations’ psychologists, is the concept of “smoothing and polishing”.
Generally without some sort of rubbing against things other individuals, a personality stays rough.
Rough can mean aggressive, arrogant, self-centred etc.
Think of a horse that has not been taught to allow someone to ride them… they might be beautiful, they might be majestic, but they are not useful in a human society. (For those who think all animals should be left to their natural habitat…. you are making my point here)
For example, the polishing or smoothing process that happens when parents tune their children to be able to function in society in a productive manner is the example in question here.
Yes, i realize that those same folks that are offended by that polishing, or utilizing horses for riding, may also be offended by the concept of individuals needing to be functioning productive members of society……
But in the case of human society, when there is more than one person involved, there is rudimentary society, and that society, in order to function helpfully for everyone, needs productivity of the individuals that make up that society. They will fulfill many duties, and be individuals in many ways, but to be a helpful part of society, they need to fit in with the societies concepts. This fitting in requires that the natural person needs to be taught and moulded into a person who can do the tasks required of them.
When society is not allowed to have concepts that make it function properly, the society is doomed. The path being followed currently is leading to a breakdown of all these concepts which create a productive functional society.
Children, in their natural form, must become adults in order to be society builders. Children who refuse to grow up and have a social function become trouble for society.
This is not a product of what is being dismissed as colonialism or capitalism, it exists in the most primitive forms of society, and in fact, is one of the most rudimentary characteristics of all societies.
Reality is Dharma 
Good thinking … but how far does it go? What happens when it develops into authoritarianism? Hmm… good discussion on this topic on CBC Ideas: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/who-s-drawn-to-fascism-postwar-study-of-authoritarianism-makes-a-comeback-1.6403074
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thinking that this is more about the influences on us when we are growing up. Parental influence, then growing out from that, our sense of ourselves in our social environment (school, clubs, church etc). It is more the social environment that we find ourselves in. (How we individually are impacted by those pressures is another subject… and one i am working thru as we speak)
There has never been a completely balanced and perfect social environment in history, but the one we find ourselves in is about the best there has ever been. But on the other hand, if a society has no “standards of conduct” it is not a society in my mind. It seems that we are currently tearing at the very fabric of society.. not just our current standards.. all in the name of freedom of expression for the individual…..
At this point, the pendulum is swinging towards “be authentic as you find yourself naturally“, but we all know that without any “tuning in” while we are growing up, we cannot be good social participants. Our society MUST necessarily have a balance between letting a person “fly their greek flag” and having standards that people can trust in to bring them a good life.
I cannot think of any situation where, short of living alone in the woods, we will not have to meet some sort of standard in living together.
This issue gets looked at relating to our current situation, and where to go from here, but really it needs to be looked at starting at rudimentary society:
“How do we live together without harming one another”….. starting from lets say, 3 families in a cave, and the rules they need to maintain in order to live with a sense of security, sharing and cooperation…. what does that look like? Those are the most basic rules, and can act as a guideline thru to where people are out of the lower levels of the “Hierarchy of Needs”, and into whether they choose to be self-absorbed, or good social participants.
Thoughts?
(At the same time, a leader in a cave will begin to assert their dominance over the group….. but, as my neighbour told me about our dog “she is a pack animal, and so she needs to know that there is a leader, and she feels safe in that……”…… also something to consider, because we DO seek safety in packs… otherwise we wouldn’t turn our concept of society into city living…..)
LikeLike
Thank you for your response to my question! I do not think we are meant to be individualists the way our society seems to encourage … while we each have personal attributes, I think they are meant to work together in order to create a society. Individualism and society, each if taken to extremes, are actually opposites. I agree with you that we need to find a balance … oh, and I don’t think large cities are the kinds of “packs” a good society needs; too often, they are simply the result of greed on the part of the rich and powerful and desperation on the part of most of the rest.
LikeLike
Regarding the editorial you mentioned, the political situation is so volatile right now, with the media playing one side or the other, and using confirmation bias to use the facts to their beck and call, that it is hard to get a clear bead on what the issues are. A clear take on a situation cannot be achieved by starting out with a biased view on things … it needs to have a broader perspective to start from.
My own picture of this, is a triangle of marbles… if the bottom row has one “wrong view” marble, and all the marbles in the upper rows will be gradually infected by it. We can’t get past that….. it is a limitation of the human condition.
Leadership is always swinging between Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. Always has, always will. There really is no govt style that can be safe from falling into an authoritarianism. But some are better and some are worse.
What these various political styles do, is to villianize a current trend (the other guys) and thereby cement their own standing…… it is more of a tactic than a sign of one type of govt or another.
The terminology used in that editorial using “fascism” and using “Trumpism” as a model of populism seems to smack of the current left wing narrative.
No laws = no society.
How we build from there is a fancy dance. (tightrope?) 🙂
LikeLike
Yes … again the need for balance … versus the desire for power and wealth, whether left or right wing … or authoritarianism … or even democracy that can’t meet and compromise and aim for the good of all
LikeLike