Dean
26th July 2008, 02:20
I had a very interesting conversation earlier with my brother and a couple friends. It started off as a discussion about how hipsters are known to bullshit. But I stumbled on a very interesting psycho-linguistic concept, which can be appled to the associative versus competitive theory of social interaction.
Basically, it was noted that when people bullshit (described as speaking on an issue without more than rudimentary knowledge of the concept) with each other, and make a distinct slip (conflating a poet with an author, for instance) that both people notice, an awkward silence often follows. This lays bare the underlying character of the conversation, which involves making statements meant to evoke awe and excitement, basically self-promoting. The conversation is not about relatedness, but rather about marketing oneself to the listener.
This makes it clear that such discourse, which appears to dominate the social sphere today, is primarily a competitive, rather than associative force. This contrasts to the socialist outlook in that the associate social organization seeks to bring about a closeness, which can only be achieved in an honest, relative format. This means, from my understanding, that people make genuine attempts to relate one's own experience to and with that of one's peer. This requires self-criticising by definition, because no honest outlook on oneself can be totally positive. this is, in effect, a compelling act of "bringing together" two human beings, creating a snythesis between members of society which eoncourage and solidify a social order rife with social responsibility, empathy, respect and nurturing.
And yes, I'm dead serious, this is how my mind works. I take a simple issue - a wack conversation with a hipster downstairs - and I analyze it to the point that it becomes part of a social theory - here, about competitive versus associative social organization. And I guess I wanted to share this creative process as well as my final product!
Thoughts?
Basically, it was noted that when people bullshit (described as speaking on an issue without more than rudimentary knowledge of the concept) with each other, and make a distinct slip (conflating a poet with an author, for instance) that both people notice, an awkward silence often follows. This lays bare the underlying character of the conversation, which involves making statements meant to evoke awe and excitement, basically self-promoting. The conversation is not about relatedness, but rather about marketing oneself to the listener.
This makes it clear that such discourse, which appears to dominate the social sphere today, is primarily a competitive, rather than associative force. This contrasts to the socialist outlook in that the associate social organization seeks to bring about a closeness, which can only be achieved in an honest, relative format. This means, from my understanding, that people make genuine attempts to relate one's own experience to and with that of one's peer. This requires self-criticising by definition, because no honest outlook on oneself can be totally positive. this is, in effect, a compelling act of "bringing together" two human beings, creating a snythesis between members of society which eoncourage and solidify a social order rife with social responsibility, empathy, respect and nurturing.
And yes, I'm dead serious, this is how my mind works. I take a simple issue - a wack conversation with a hipster downstairs - and I analyze it to the point that it becomes part of a social theory - here, about competitive versus associative social organization. And I guess I wanted to share this creative process as well as my final product!
Thoughts?