welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Some musings on "bro" solidarity
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Eiden



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 404

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you don't believe there is any collective communality between bro-identified people that would make them not all kill each other for dominance if they knew the cops would not be a problem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zarus



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think they'd either learn to settle down or they'd burn out. One way or the other, the surface of the water would find its level. So to answer your question, I don't know one way or the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eiden



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 404

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not exactly an answer to my question?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zarus



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Point is, the culture would either change, or die, or both.

Internal contradiction is also why I think the "sexual revolution" failed.

The "revolution" was based on two concepts.

1. Lust should be treated as if it's effectively limitless.

2. Personal attachments should be discouraged.

Problem is, it's impossible to feel great lust for someone/something without a corresponding sense of possessiveness. Think of an apple. If someone really wanted the apple, they'd feel a great desire to ensure that no one else got the apple; even if they didn't go that far, they'd make sure that they at least got a nice, big bite, and that they'd be able to get more bites of apples similar to this one.

The sexual revolution wanted everyone to really, really want the apple, and yet it also wanted them to share the apple. You don't share things you want for yourself. That's not how desire works.


Last edited by zarus on Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:39 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eiden



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 404

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, but do you have an answer to my question? Does any such collective communality exist among bros? Or is it literally free for all if you can make sure the police won't know about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zarus



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the machismo is largely a pose, that it's a combination of media influence(sports, shows like Mad Men), government influence (the military, school), and the primitive desire to emulate others. Without these influences, there'd be very little for most people to fight over.

But I don't really have a definite answer, and it's foolish to expect one on this kind of matter. The desire for certainty in human relations, however illusory, is what creates the monstrosity that is religion and mass culture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 370

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I may be permitted to come at this from a different tack, from the viewpoint of the law rather than a philosophical perspective, I wonder if there might be some problems with your hypothesis there. We know experientially that if there are environments that lack part of the element you claim is driving this potential destruction, (the bro culture) and then suffer a similar situation to the one you describe (the removal of government/media control), then there's a strong possibility something in your theorised causation is wrong or missing. There are some elements of that seen around the world even at the current time.

Somalia, for example, is perhaps a Ph.d's dream in that it's a failed state that only recently has seen any semblance of order being returned to it, and even that is nascent. For years it has been stripped of government or legal rule and has been essentially an anarchical state. I hope we can all agree that the Somalian situation is not strongly populated by what you tenuously defined as the bro culture, and yet we see a very similar outcome to your theorised end reality, that without a structure holding in place the aggression, the society breaks down.

There is a possible conclusion from that which would indicate that this is not something unique to American culture, but something indicative of the human nature in this situation. Most of the major anarchy in Somalia is centered in and emanates out from the major urban areas. Smaller villages largely remained the same except when acted upon by forces spreading out from those disrupted zones. Those villages had always acted on essentially a common law system, an unwritten set of edicts reinforced through common practice, and the reinforcement of the unity that comes from a small group. It is the city that failed, because the city was being supported by a hierarchical system that allowed multiple groups to coexist, a system that permitted the organisation of humans into a group larger than that which could easily coexist without proper management of resources.

I believe you're ignoring the sociological aspect of humans. We have various electronic accoutrements and sophisticated hobbies and very enlightened exteriors, but we are essentially still tribal at our heart. This is in fact one of the criticisms of multiculturalism in general. If you look at nations like South Korea or Japan, there's a sense of stability there and a lower level of crime that can be attributed partially to the stronger sense of community a homogeneous nation enjoys. A nation like America, however, has many diverse cultural groups within its borders, some of which come into conflict with each other over perceived issues of ethics or resources, among others. I'm making no statement either way on multiculturalism here, by the way. A homogeneous nation has problems just like a state embracing multiculturalism. "Groupthink" becomes a real issue when there is such a strong reinforcing push to stay within the community's bounds, for example. Individuality may be suppressed to an extent. Multiculturalism can solve a lot of that.

What we're really talking about, in my opinion, is the existence or lack of existence of a control system, in this case the government. A government is at its heart nothing but a series of laws backed up both by the force to empower them and the will of the people to adopt those laws as a common guiding force in their interactions with others. Ultimately it is the law which is the fabric of society. In the modern world, you can have almost no interaction with anyone or anything that is not governed by a law. When a situation arises like you describe, the removal of the government, there is certainly going to be conflict. You have suddenly created a vacuum in an environment populated by many different "tribes" of humans, and those tribes will suddenly find themselves without the necessary guidance on how to handle the proper division of resources, for example. Failing that, human tribes will do what they have done for thousands of years, and they'll create smaller units which they feel they can sustain as a group and they will compete for resources, be it land or food or water or in the modern era, electricity and medicine, etc. This has been a truth of humanity for almost our entire history. We do not see ourselves as one species, and we further break down into groups that we feel can live on the resources we perceive around us. That's what I find so strange about your hypothesis that there's this mutual contradiction between the self and the group. Humans have always intrinsically formed groups.

In any case, that's a bit of my perspective on this. I've done some work on this regarding multiculturalism and the involvement of conflict groups within the law. One of the conclusions I've come to is that multiculturalism is not inherently the better system, but that it contains more advantages to a homogeneous society so long as the groups involved have their own internal and also external stability, in that internally they're no longer in conflict within themselves over their ethics or self identity, and externally they're given adequate access to the resources of the larger group and afforded equal access to the law. One of the problems in America is that obviously this isn't the case. Interestingly, in a large modern society like America, with a police force now topping 750,000, the police themselves have formed a cultural group and that group is inherently in conflict with certain other groups, which may present a nearly insurmountable problem. That's probably a different story though, a topic in its own right.

Those are some basic thoughts of mine on the matter. I think you may be coming to conclusions based on an inaccurate premise that this is a situation unique to America when in truth it's a more common problem endemic to the human condition. I'm also curious about why you haven't addressed what peculiar motivation a government would have to create a system so unstable as the one you described on purpose, when in your hypothesis, without that fanning of aggression, we'd have a relatively docile state of Americans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eiden



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 404

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zarus wrote:
I think that the machismo is largely a pose, that it's a combination of media influence(sports, shows like Mad Men), government influence (the military, school), and the primitive desire to emulate others. Without these influences, there'd be very little for most people to fight over.

But I don't really have a definite answer, and it's foolish to expect one on this kind of matter. The desire for certainty in human relations, however illusory, is what creates the monstrosity that is religion and mass culture.


I think after mulling this over for a night -- that you have a generally hazy idea or conceptualization of what we would call normative patriarchal social mores and have applied that to an idea that no fraternal bond really measurably exists for young males who express a lot of male-dominant hierarchical associations.

Or, in plainer English, that there is no real bond outside of fear of authority for "bros". I think, thankfully, this is not the case. It runs contrary to most known studied fraternal behavior among males.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group