<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: The nature of anarchism (Lefty Despair etc.)</title></head><body> <div>At 12:37 PM -0500 30/9/02, Cliff Staples wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>I've been fighting the individualism of American college students day in and day out for the past 20 years, so you don't have to convince me about the importance of getting people to see how "systems make people what they are."  Yet, doesn't this move still somewhat beg the question: what exactly ARE the people that the system makes?  Essentialized notions of the individual-- which too often carry the day, even now-- would have it that the individual is somehow ONE THING.  In our case, this leads quite easily into block categorizing "working people" as "alienated," or "exploited" or what have you.  Yet, even a little self-reflection tells us that the self is not one thing, but many, all in a conflicted and ever-changing whirl-- and filled with pain, pleasure, joy and sorrow-- all maybe in the same instant.  Just think about your last dinner party, last Friday's work-day, or your last birthday.  Alienated and exploited people can and do have fun.. and maybe not just alienated and exploited fun.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Actually, I've never been to a dinner party in my life. But I agree that we are not just one thing.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Marx wasn't much of a social psychologist but he was definitely on to something with his statement about the individual as an "ensemble of social relations" (the exact source escapes me, but it's probably in the<i> Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts</i>).  Unfortunately, the few who have tried to build on this insight, either with Freud, or the American Pragmatists (G.H. Mead in particular), have tended to produce an overly cognitive and rational individual, however amenable to being "made by systems."  So, I think a lot more work could and should be done here... and my preference, obviously, is to look toward the post-structuralists.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>It is a bit more complex than simply people being made by systems. Culture is shaped by economics and people both shape and are shaped by culture. But individuals are shaped in their youth. As we get older we become set in our ways, it becomes a great deal more difficult to absorb new ideas and learn new ways of thinking. I'm sure this is due to the simple mechanics of the human brain, neural pathways are laid out in a certain way according to our experiences and it is harder to rip up the old neural network and lay down a new one, than it was to lay down the original on a blank sheet.</div> <div><br></div> <div>As a result, there appears to be a substantial lag between material changes in economic conditions and changes in culture to adapt to the new conditions. At least a generation is required for cultures to adapt to new objective conditions. Sometimes much longer. The old have to die for new ways of thinking to take hold.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Bartlett</div> <div>Bracknell Tas</div> </body> </html>