Love & Social Change discussion

This topic is about
Butterflies in my stomach
Books & Blogs by Group Members
>
Which is better: love or hate?
date
newest »



I think that first, we have to ask ourselves two questions. What is love? What is hate? Arguably, one could see this discussion group as having a topical focus centered around love. However, many of the posts that I have read here seem riddled-through with hate. Certainly pain is a strong motivator for social change. And when people are in pain, they usually want to be loved. But there is a vicious circle that all too often obtains wherein love is preached, yet hatred is expressed. A good way to visualize this circle is to think of a group of people standing in a circle all pointing fingers at each other, yet never at themselves.
Now, does that mean that the solution is simply to point the finger at yourself? I think the answer is more complex than that in application. We are social animals (to refer to the title of a book that I saw in passing in one of the threads in this group). We are wired to be interconnected with each other. But consider this difficulty: just because one person decides to point a finger at herself does not ensure that the other people in the circle will follow suit. In fact, it is all the more likely that she will become a scapegoat - and thus, even in a self-enlightened moment, tragedy ensues.
This a social problem. And I think that it first requires a level of social awareness before social conscientiousness can be a fairly reasonable expectation.
I once had a professor in college who tried to explain one of the major problems in transitioning from Thomas Hobbes's so-called 'state of nature' to a state of civil society. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this theoretical 'state of nature,' it is the idea of starting from a situation in which everyone has a 'right' to everything and to everyone else. Hobbes' idea was that rational people could form a civil society from such a theoretical state by coming together for the purpose of their own common welfare and mutual defense (against any who remained, who did not rationally come to this same conclusion). However, our professor asked us to imagine the following scenario. Imagine that all of the people in this theoretical 'state of nature' have swords in order to attempt to individually protect themselves from one another. The problem is, who is going to lay down their sword first in order to trust another person so that they can come together to form this civil society?
Now, does that mean that the solution is simply to point the finger at yourself? I think the answer is more complex than that in application. We are social animals (to refer to the title of a book that I saw in passing in one of the threads in this group). We are wired to be interconnected with each other. But consider this difficulty: just because one person decides to point a finger at herself does not ensure that the other people in the circle will follow suit. In fact, it is all the more likely that she will become a scapegoat - and thus, even in a self-enlightened moment, tragedy ensues.
This a social problem. And I think that it first requires a level of social awareness before social conscientiousness can be a fairly reasonable expectation.
I once had a professor in college who tried to explain one of the major problems in transitioning from Thomas Hobbes's so-called 'state of nature' to a state of civil society. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this theoretical 'state of nature,' it is the idea of starting from a situation in which everyone has a 'right' to everything and to everyone else. Hobbes' idea was that rational people could form a civil society from such a theoretical state by coming together for the purpose of their own common welfare and mutual defense (against any who remained, who did not rationally come to this same conclusion). However, our professor asked us to imagine the following scenario. Imagine that all of the people in this theoretical 'state of nature' have swords in order to attempt to individually protect themselves from one another. The problem is, who is going to lay down their sword first in order to trust another person so that they can come together to form this civil society?
Obviously, love is better. The problem, with respect to social change, is how it comes about when there is deeply rooted pain, a history of conflict, injustice, etc. Love and Social Change, then is about the exceptional: hate turned into love.
Free to download on the 8th & 9th of March 2018.
Butterflies in my stomach: Love is wicked. http://amzn.to/2oEE0ND