One way to perceive the impact of community desires and needs on the individual is “control” but alternate framings include support, belonging, mutual aid, etc. — again not saying any is “better”, but I do think the singular conceptualization of the individual as being solely responsible for his/her own decisions and ultimately outcomes might cause a lot of the friction as reality doesn’t quite support that notion.
Dan pink’s “autonomy, mastery, purpose” trifecta is enlightening here, as it illustrates how “autonomy” doesn’t mean “free from control” but is ultimately about the respect an individual feels, regarding their decisions, from others.
Just some food for thought.
No, it's also wrong, as the whole luxury of choice the parent pretends to be the ideal situation, is based on a whole lot of other people supporting them (from parents throughout childhood, to social structures, technology, resources, and infrastructure, security, to healthcare, someone else whipping their ass in some nursing home when they're 80 and so on).
Imagination of some future utopia is a dime a dozen. Scenarios that actually work are much less easy to find.
>in likewise post agriculture, large scale society
I don't see any post agriculture "large scale society". I see an even more increased role of agriculture, amidst food and resource wars, and society dropping in numbers (and scattering to smaller dwellings), what with climate change, and all.
A common phrase is about how you don't choose your family. But you often choose your friends, and many can choose certain communities to actively be in.
I think that you can have a sense of community, of some sort of greater good, of buy in, when you have that choice. For example, someone who has the choice of moving across the country to go to a school that interests them, to help out with an organization that aligns with what they are interested in, to work in an industry that they appreciate.
When society is built in a way to provide people the ability to move around, then those inside it will understand the value of it, and will be active participants in the societal effort. and they will be way more onboard with the "demands" from the society as a whole as a result. Though of course this is a question that can come up at every scale.
At least that has been my experience. I care a hell of a lot more about society when it has given me the opportunity to be part of communities that make sense to me, and to see how others get this opportunity as well. And so I gladly pay my dues, even if I might complain a bit.
I'm not advocating for the alternative, in the slightest -- being forced to be part of a community that doesn't respect you the way you are (as was true for MANY pre-internet, including anyone who wasn't part of the heteronormative or neurotypical hegemony) is horrible, toxic, abusive, etc., and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. But the dramatic filtering of American society into factions that mirror political parties with shockingly separate information worlds that frankly describe completely different realities is made much easier because it is so easy to silo yourself.
There is no easy answer here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...
It sounds like you are saying that these values are very important, and that missing them is a “severe … social illness”.
I’m not making any historical claims here, nor any claims of relative correctness or value (though plenty of others in this thread are) — I’m just noting that these are a specific set of values and not universal ones, and I’d caution you about universalizing your notion of individual by characterizing the lack of these freedoms as a “social ill”. For example, one might easily value connectedness, belonging, mutual aid, and social support above the ability to relocate, etc. — in most societies the freedom to relocate is not the freedom to relocate your social support — and giving up social support by relocating in order to “keep” more of produced value is a big trade-off that many don’t choose to make.
And as you note, other societies have had other notions of the individual across history throughout the world.
> (I) the freedom to move away or relocate from one's surroundings; (2) the freedom to ignore or disobey commands issued by others; and (3) the freedom to shape entirely new social realities, or shift back and forth between different ones.
these are proposed as more meaningful ways of evaluating how "advanced" a society is in its liberties. which is interesting for reevaluating current conditions, (post agriculture, large scale) human societies of the past (that may have been dismissed as primitive before), and for imagining where we can go from here.
And how are these revelevant to a modern, much more elaborate, society, if it wants to also keep certain things (like production, technology, education, infrastructure, etc.)?
How is respect defined here? One man's definition of respect will clash with another's. Some define respect as cult-like devotion, some as a recognition of one's boundaries, some as a transaction at a specific price, some as engaging in an expected cultural performance, etc. Freedom from control or, more precisely, imposition and interference is well-defined. Desires for respect can balloon into wishful thinking, if not self-delusion.
Of course, some people may have more or less difficulty detecting sincerity in others but that’s no different from other social skills.
Respect shouldn't be entirely up to the invididuals to define what action (note: what action/stance/etc, not which person) deserves it -- otherwise it's not respect, it's just a personal whim.
Given our agreement that whim should not define respect, then what is it defined by exactly? If the individuals themselves are not the ones to determine what constitutes a "respectful act", then where does one obtain the ability or authority to draw the line as to what qualifies as respect and what doesn't?
It's not about where the philosophy exists in individuals, but about what socio-systemic forces brought those modes of thinking into being. Ironically this mirrors the point above about how the framing of this issue itself is rooted in individualist perspective.
Edit = spelling (dang autocorrect:-()
