Efficiency is overrated, my friends.
I'm getting swamped with schoolwork, and I find that I have less and less time to spend posting new stuff on here. I think you guys all are feeling it, too: the feeling that midterms and other responsibilities are getting in the way of stuff that we want to do. Still, whenever I have a new idea, you guys can be sure that you'll be some of the first to hear it.As you probably have noticed, most of my ideas come when I talk to someone, or read something, and the idea just pops into my head. I consider it for a while, modify it, and come up with examples that support it. But the genesis of the idea remains fairly simple. What I'm going to talk about here doesn't have such a simple beggining: it came up out of a sea of scrambled notions in my brain. There is, however, one concept you must know before we go on. This is the 'Efficient Markets Hypothesis' in economics, which says that the stock market reflects all the new information about it already. That is, it is useless to go look for tips in the Wall Street Journal because anything you get is already being considered in the market price of the stock. This is not true in all cases; still, the statistical or general representation is of an efficient market.
If that messes with your mind, check my application of the rule. My rule is the 'Efficient Society Hypothesis.' As you may be able to guess from the similarity, it says that a society already reflects all the new information about it, perhaps especially the ideas that are intended on changing a society. That means that revolutions don't erupt: the forces that cause a revolution are in play in the society usually decades before they happen: otherwise they couldn't happen.
Most people think that the cause and effect works the opposite of what I'm claiming. They see a leader, or group, that rallies people to a cause and leads them on a crusade to bring about change. I say that by the time such an organization shows up, the society has already changed in proportion to the popularity, power, and radicalism of the idea. Again, if it were otherwise such a group could not exist.
How is that? Well, in general, most of one's ideas comes from the society they grow up in, or are in now. Even if they reject the system, they become rebels in terms of the system they are opposing. Rebel kids today get piercings and tatoos, where in some countries in Africa tatoos are an essential part of livelihood. So to consider that an idea is wrong and needs change means that the concept that that idea is wrong must come from somewhere. The rules that make up society are flexible, so interpretations come up, and with interpretations come disputes. Sad but true. Those disputes lead to various currents of thought that permeate a society, especially a complex society such as ours. It is these currents that cause change, rather than the people in the spotlight who take hold of them. Russia was already Communist when Lenin took over the Bolsheviks. America was already at war years before the Declaration of Independence, but the royalists were always there, too.
Now, there are quite a few exceptions here, mostly because there are a multitude of outside forces that people can get ideas from. Take the Civil Rights Movement. That is a movement that mostly agrees with my analysis, but the idea of nonviolent resistance as advocated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. came from his knowledge of Gandhi's similar tactics, (and yes, Gandhi got it from Thoureau, but don't confuse the issue, here) and so that opened up a branch of the Civil Rights Movement that wouldn't have occured otherwise.
Here's a different example. Do you guys remember Mr. Harris talking about elections? He likened them to a freeway: choosing between candidates is like choosing between exits. You might end up miles away from where the other exit led or even from where you started. Well, I have to disagree with his analysis. (Sorry, Mr. Harris, but it isn't the first time I've disagreed with you.) I say that by the time the candidates are in the running, the election is essentially over. People are going to vote in certain predictable ways, depending on the society and the layout of the forces within it. Also, the candidates have to work within the system, and are susceptible to these same forces that other people are. So by the time the election occurs, the car is already off the freeway, and the election is the effect of that shift or continuation in thought, whatever it may be.
I have just realized that this could be useful in history. I haven't gone into the history of it yet, but I certainly could. The French Revolution springs to mind. Actually most revolutions spring to mind. I'll look into it after midterms, maybe.
How this concerns me right now is the idea of whether societies are even able to choose their own paths, whether societies have free will. I wonder if it is even worth asking, or whether it would be beneficial to the individual one way or another?
posted by Emmett @ 20:43
8 Comments:
I find I get more done when I'm just doing what I want to, actually.
What? Wait... What???
I think it's cuz I'm a writer. I just sort of follow my moods, and the things that need to get done, get done usually. 'Course, there's always the exception, but just chilling tends to work. Then there's the odd factor that I LIKE what I have to do half the time...
Before I begin, I would just like to clarify for Emmett... Maren's comment is about the first paragraph of your post. The one about being swamped with school and everything.
You know, it's kind of hard to say anything when you say, "I think this is the way something is, but it's not always this way." Stupid exceptions. You seem to be right, most of the time. I would, however, like to say a few things about the super individual's part in this. And let us make no mistake--foolish talk of equality between all humans aside, there are people who are given much greater gifts than the average person.
When we have a single movement that is spearheaded by such supermen, it is difficult to say whether it could have happened without them. Would France have nearly conquered all of Europe if not for Napoleon's military genius? Would it have tried? Would Carthage have given Rome such a run for its money had not Hannibal been around? What about Hitler or Sir Winston Churchill? Would their respective nations have performed the same in WWII had they not been around? Would the society have created another individual suitable to do its will? This may be beside the point, unless we consider the effects of these individuals in galvanizing the nation to an action, not only their ability to empower the nation in taking its course.
One class of events that I would say changed the society rather than reflected society's bent is (named in Campbell's style, with wide-sweeping capitalized names that hint at lines of myth and spiritualism common to all societies) The Appearance of the Prophet. When people like Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Gandhi, etc. come into the picture, they usually come into a society that is completely lacking the spiritual energy needed to do what the Prophet tells them and try, frequently and repeatedly, to go against the Prophet's words. See the Crucifixion, ancient Israel's frequent rebellions and subsequent mass slayings, and frequent Indian interreligion violence at that time for examples... and I have no idea if Buddha put up with anything like that, though it seems logical. There are, of course, times when the Prophet is ignored and the people continue in their paths to destruction and/or ignorance. I think initially of Jeremiah and the destruction of Jerusalem around 600 BC. So the preexisting attitude of the society would matter even in this, but it seems to be on a different level--outside forces and ideas from the Prophet (and, ultimately, God) permeate the society thanks to the tendency of Prophets to not shut up and let us suicide our society. Whether or not they change the society is dependent on the society's willingness and ability to resist, not necessarily whether they would have come up with these ideas on their own.
So, now that I think about it, The Appearance of the Prophet does in fact fall under what you said about outside forces, it just looks different and spontaneous because the outside force isn't initially from any particular neighboring society or nation.
So to what degree can a single individual constitute an outside force when he isn't in the class of people I just described? As you said in your meme posts, logic can create new ideas in and of itself, and the individual may also gather ideas from other socities and times by, say, reading or travel.
I guess it all goes back to the fact that there's no such thing as a society in a vacuum. Grr. Stupid inability to prove anything.
Okay...sorry I didn't get it at first Maren, but I'm used to just thinking about the main point of my blog rather than the introduction. Usually it works the same way for me; most things that I need to get done, I manage to do, even when I'm lazy.
And Paul, you're definitely right on with your analysis of the role of the ubermensch (Nietzches term, but you know German so I won't translate it. ;) ) in the history of societies. I think that the ubermensch act as a spark when the ideas are reaching a head: they set off a cataclysmic cycle of action where before there was only societal forces below the surface. I think that eventually those forces would break loose, one way or another; still, obviously things would have turned out differently if there had been no Napoleon, Hannibal, Churchill or Hitler.
On the other hand, I think that these great men are not in short supply; I think that the opportunity of position allows greatness to bloom to its full capacity. Why not also ask what Napoleon would have been like had he been around during the reign of Louis XIV, when France was the most stable country in Europe and also the most powerful? In the same way, we may have great people in other aspects, and if in some parallel dimension something like knitting was the key to societal change rather than war and revolution, we would find a different set of great people; but, as you said, people have different abilities and we would find that we would not run out of great people to fill the roles needed.
As for the Appearance of the Prophet, you are somewhat correct that they are bringing out a different aspect of society, but are you sure that it is completely outside that society that the prophet is within? One of the similarities that all the people you mentioned (as well as other moralists such as Socrates, Confucious, and Zarathustra) share is that they are all trying to persuade the people to return to the morality of the ancients. While they certainly may be divinely inspired, that doesn't mean that their message is outside the societal structure. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that morality because it exists within a society does it mean that morality is a human development. Considering the doctrine of the fall, doesn't it make sense that people would take the archaic message along with them as they set up society?
The definition was very simple. Maybe it's just that I watch the financial shows on FOX (I can hear you bristle). That way I know what to put my money into when I actually get enough money to invest.
I agree somewhat with your supposition about the revolution bit. The public must have already changed their attitudes and ideas before the revolution, but if everything was done before, then the masses would be spontaneously uprising. It takes a leader to channel their frustrations and a controlled movement to subject change. However, that leader may channel the frustrations of an entire country in a SMALL number of ways. Take 9/11, for example. President Bush could have riled the country into a religiously-motivated war with Christianity versus “Fanatical” Islam (which would have included basically all of Islam and not many people would have disagreed until long after). He instead chose to take the Bill of Rights road and talk with somewhat subdued tones.
I don't see how your statement talking about elections is universal or even practical. Yes, the big issues are there. There are frustrations (and politicians use frustrations more than anything else to get votes). But there are invariably different ways to fix the problems that frustrate the electorate in general. How does your model explain the recent German elections where there was a sharp turn in the polls in the days, not weeks, preceding the vote? I was because Shroeder said his opponents way to fix society’s ills wouldn’t work because of X, Y, and Z. Then he said his ways would work because of A, B, and C. I would say that your model fits somewhat, but only in addressing the concerns of the voter. Yes, there are different ways a politician can get your votes from those frustrations, and that's where the Harris model explains how these societal energies can be driven, like a car, to take you in a completely different direction. Politics would not operate without these constant and slow trends in society, but politicians win because they can address and channel these trends for a short time to effect their election, much like a revolutionary leader can channel society to effect drastic "change" in government only when the people have already changed. I agree, however, that the public has already changed, and it's up to their leaders to change or get booted out as well.
I have some more to say after reading your comments. I usually read the post, then comment, then read your comments. Okay, about what Paul said. Yes, that's what I was saying, but I didn't bring up prophets. I would say that the BoM says that the people were either "prepared" to hear the message, or they had "hardened their hearts." It seems that those who were "hardened" were given one last warning before they were punished. So, a Prophet is received by a society as a whole only if the society is "ready" to be taught. And yes, Emmett, the Prophets do remind the people about ancient teachings, but a Prophet usually brings new light to the matter in the form of revelation, at least in Christianity. Christ had a new Law in addition to the Law of Moses. I don't know much about Bhudda, but I know he was searching for enlightenment. So, as I said before, your model accounts for the underlying trends in society, but it takes a leader to organize that society to effect drastic change. I agree that there will always be a leader for change when the society is perturbed, but I also think that that leader can channel the energies in a limited way, like making a small turn to the left or to the right, creating a largely different future clear down the road, and thus satisfying both your model and Harris' model.
Sorry, Emmett!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home