Lesson: Liberal Perspective, Social Individual, Household, Family, Nature etc

For a person who prefers to have systemized information, in such a way that every concept is related to another in a very rigid and defined manner, hearing about all these concepts in our lecture "forces my finger towards an itch in my scalp." First of all, I understand that the only conventional information we have about "social reality" lies within perspectives and uncertain, or inapplicable even, theories. But this does not negate a systematical orderliness within the perspectives and the concepts that lie within. What I want to do, or write, in this blog entry is arrange all these unconnected concepts, to other known facts of reality, in such a way that I can cleanly comprehend what is being delivered. 

First of all, what is the social contract and the talk about the relevance of the individual in the formation of a nation? So, the social contract is supposedly about the agreement between the civilian and the ruler, and how this agreement forms the creation of the state. Proponents of this idea are Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. A little internet search shows us that these people were all active before the 1800's and inactive after. This part of our World Timeline is essential to note because Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory came during the 1800's and not before. Bio-evolutionary speaking, which is the most scientific perspective, humans are bonded together way back before they were "humans." Socio-power relations can be traced back by simply referencing an evolutionary concept known as "herd behavior." In short, the simple answer to the question of the creation of nations and states is that it is innate and evolutionary. As noted by evolutionary-biologist W.D. Hamilton, It is a "prey-behavior" in the sense that the weak increases its chances of survival by coordinating with other individuals of similar features. The reason as to why this behavior exists is because it was somewhat tested and it worked, otherwise known as 'natural selection.' 

This 'nature-answer', however, becomes vague and unconvincing once the concept of 'freewill' is introduced. But, seeing as cooperation does increase chances of survival wherein survival is almost 100% valued upon by all humans, then it is not so surprising anymore. Then again, authority may fall into tyranny, as shown in history, and civilians might enter a state wherein inclusion within the society endangers their own survival. In that case, the 'ruler' is not innately controlled by 'benevolent' genetic traits but is free to act in any manner he wishes. So, perhaps, by then, the social contract theory applies. But to clarify, I do not think the "agreement" is between the 'state' and the 'individual' but rather it is between 'state' and 'nature.' What is at conflict, by this point, is the survival of the many and the tyrannical will of the powerful. Survival is instinctual whereas will is individualistic. This leads us into thinking that it is not a "contract" at all in the sense that "contract" implies agreement between agents. It is simply the will of the powerful that creates the organization. 

What is the Liberal Individual? John Locke talks about "reasoning human being" and "owning property." There are also mentions of "liabilities", "obligations", "rights", and "duties." 

Let's see...the liberal individual is suppose to make up what is society. However, judging from my earlier analysis, there should only be a limited "liberal individual", and the ruler marks the person with the greatest liberty. The majority should be "natural individuals", as they represent the mandate of nature and survival. John Locke, himself, is a part of the wealthy or the aristocrats. The liberal individual are the people who have bypassed naturalistic mindsets, and bypassing that mindset allows one to gain "reason" and education, as well as owning property. "Liberal individuals" also have the conscious freedom of following social legalities and norms or not, hence "liabilities" "obligations" etc. 

There is now a similarity between what I refer to as the "natural individual" and the "social individual." They both have no choice but to conform because they cannot afford to be discarded by society, unlike the rich. They cannot afford this because of survivalist reasons.

What if we apply the ideas mentioned in international relations? Hobbes talks about the 'vacuum of power' between nations, who represent liberal individuals, but what if these nations are not liberal individuals? After all, the closer one's desire for survival, the more 'naturalistic' it is. Perhaps states are simply animals with no common enemy; no predator to prey upon them aside from themselves. There is fear and distrust because there is strong survivalist mindset. 

People, Households(???) and the World.

Our first reading was quite interesting. I don't really understand the emphasis on the households though. I don't believe the central point of social relations lies within studying household; it would not help in gaining further understanding of development. The greater point of my own learning, after all, is to gain an understanding of the social system, if there is indeed a system.

A very important idea that I found recently is the dynamicity or the elasticity of social order or power relations. The author uses a lot of female adjectives and that may hint as to why she focuses on father-mother relations wherein the old American nuclear family gifts the father the greatest authority. I believe there is unnecessary urgency to investigate this power system. The household unit is easily influence by the greater society, this means that it is dynamic as plastic. What would benefit greater understanding is a study of the factor with the greatest effect over time. Human relations, unlike scientific relations, is marked by it's dynamics, which is either sourced from the complexity of human behavior or the often referenced "free will." But, really, households? The auhor has enough understanding of how social humans are, so why does she start with the household? For us To be able to relate ourseselves to the greater system? To let readers feel the relevance of social happenings?

Social relations, isn't it simply a matter of finding the most static variables and relating those variables to other more dynamic variables? I believe that's how they usually do it in conventional science. They try to find relations between what can be controlled and what can't be controlled. So can the household affect the social? Largely unlikely.

The first few pages, however, referenced plenty of Hobbes' ideas. It talked about realism; How states behave like primal conflictive animals as oppose to cooperative cities. She talked about Hobbes was contradictingly living in a non-realist international system, about the entire Europe linked together by powerful kings, Queenz, Popes etc. I find this interesting because it led me into thinking about the industrial age producing certain economic powers to the public, the public creating republic states, and these states introducing the realist system Hobbes envisioned. I haven't read much of Hobbes writings, but he seems to have some interesting ideas.

She talked about diamonds and emotional relationships as being a tool of the economic system as well. An expected considering her own demography, I guess.