Social Beings

[A.R.Amistad]

What makes people "social beings" as Marx describes it. Is it possibly language that makes us inescapably so> If someone chooses to be a hermit, are they still social beings? I know these seem like obscure questions, but the sentiment in the United States is to mke it seem like societies are an accident, unnatural and that man is a selfish, individualistic and antisocial being. What makes us social? What are the benefits of being a social being? And, more importantly, how do I counter this adolescent sentiment?

[Broletariat]

We're closer relatives to chimpanzees which are tribe-oriented than we are to gorillas which are solitary hunters. The benefits of being social are well laid out in Mutual Aid but the basics are that when you work together instead of compete you get synergy going, and avoid unnecessary waste.

[Blake's Baby]

Brain size in humans is greater than any other species our size. Because our pelvises can't cope with bringing our children to 'full term' because of their massive heads, they're actually born at a very early stage biologically speaking. So children aren't really independent until they're about three, whereas for most animals we're talking days or weeks.

This forces humans to live in semi-stable groups to look after very dependent children. So there is a strong biological imperative to social bonding. Some archaeologists and others wh study the origins of humankind have concluded that brain-size both caused and was affected by socialisation - language is a mode of social lubrication that can be directed at multiple receivers, unlike grooming; so switching to language allowed, or was necessary because of (or both these things), larger social networks - so the theory goes anyway. Google 'Gossip, Grooming and the Evolution of Language'.

Individualism only really caught on once capitalism was the dominant organisational form of property; one could almost believe that it's been allowed to dominate thought because it serves the interests of capitalism. But that would be conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? After all, who ever suggested 'the ruling ideas in any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class'?

In the Middle Ages, the idea of one's 'station' was the over-riding paradigm; a bit like the Hindu concept of dharma, which implies both a duty and a course of action, all one could do in Western Christondom was follow the dictates of one's station to the best of one's ability. Can't remember which churchman said it, St Aldhelm I think, but something like... "there are three classes of men, those who fight, those who toil, and those who pray". He was referring to the Lords, the Peasants, and the Clergy of course. All had their part to play in the 'body politic'.

Anyway; the medieval mindset had no space for 'individualism', nor did Ancient Slave Society, nor do the hunter-gatherer bands that still exist and whose ancient cousins are thought to have preceeded all other forms of social organisation.

So in 250,000 years of modern human existence, we've only really had a theory of individualism in the last 500 years. That's the last 0.2% of homo sapiens' existence. That pretty much guarantees, to me at least, that it's completely 'accidental' and there's nothing 'natural' about it. Individualism is predicated on personal property - and, religiously, on a personal relationship with God, so post-Reformation. Which co-incidently is when capitalism is on the rise in Europe.

[Proletarian Ultra]

If someone chooses to be a hermit, are they still social beings?

They're either liars, or they go psychotic, or they were psychotic to begin with.

[¿Que?]

I think "social being" as Marx described is more broad than if you are a loner, independent person or a social butterfly or whatever. Social being refers to the most fundamental level of human organization. The term itself has also been translated as "social existence".

Thus you have this famous passage:

it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but their social existence that determines their consciousnessAs you can see, social being is an aspect of material life. It is the foundation of the base/superstructure metaphor.

The gist of it is that human beings are socialized before they become aware. Thus by the time they are able to make a choice about anything, they have already been trained if you will to think a certain way, through the process of socialization.

But I think that is my own interpretation and a bit of a stretch from what Marx actually meant. He was basically making an argument concerning human society, not individual development.

We exist because conditions have provided that certain "social" needs are met. Without meeting these needs, we cease to exist, we die. In meeting these needs we are forced to confront nature, and to develop it in order to meet these needs. This is impossible to do alone since human children are incapable of fending for themselves (hence my interpretation). Also, we may be able to live alone and provide for ourselves, but eventually we will die, and cease to exist. Thus, the "social" provides for continued existence of our selves not as individuals but as members of the human race.

This development, or harnessing of nature, to satisfy needs, constitutes the material base of society, our social existence. Out of this arises our consciousness. Our perceptions, ideas, institutions, culture etc. arise out of this material base. The character of organization at this most fundamental level will determine the character of everything else.

[A.R.Amistad]

We're closer relatives to chimpanzees which are tribe-oriented than we are to gorillas which are solitary hunters. The benefits of being social are well laid out in Mutual Aid but the basics are that when you work together instead of compete you get synergy going, and avoid unnecessary waste.

Out of curiosity, who wrote Mutual Aid? I'm curious to read this book. Also, does Darwin have any writings on the evolutionary advantages of social beings?

[Broletariat]

Out of curiosity, who wrote Mutual Aid? I'm curious to read this book. Also, does Darwin have any writings on the evolutionary advantages of social beings?
Petr Kropotkin, I'm uncertain of your latter question, but Kropotkin makes reference to Darwin very frequently in Mutual Aid

[ckaihatsu]

language is a mode of social lubrication that can be directed at multiple receivers, unlike grooming


Um, but what if I got all of my RevLeft buddies through grooming (and *not* language) -- ???

That's still okay, right?

(8 p


= )





What makes us social? What are the benefits of being a social being? And, more importantly, how do I counter this adolescent sentiment?


This is always a topical topic and one we should always be ready to decisively answer, to cut against the 'superhero' and 'private-sinkhole' (privatization) mentalities that prevail in our current bourgeois society.

The following is my own contribution to this topic -- please note that the three axes of conclusions - policy - practice are in a triple-paired dialectical relationship to each other -- by interpolating from these and testing for cognitive dissonance we can approximate and/or arrive at an individual or group consciousness from knowledge about their larger social environment and social identity.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://i46.tinypic.com/24fwswi.jpg