• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An interesting question regarding human nature

Which is more important -- social cohesion or individual freedom of expression and choice?

  • Social cohesion trumps everything

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • The individual reigns supreme

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • Total voters
    13

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I have long been interested in trying to understand human nature, and how we cope with the challenge of being both a social species, but with the capacity for self-regard and self-preservation, even at the expense of defaulting on our social obligations.

I'd like to investigate this further by asking members to answer a simple poll question: "Which is more important to the advancement of humanities survival -- social cohesion or individual freedom of expression?"

Here are a few things to think about:

Stonehenge could never have been built without social cohesion and a commitment to shared outcomes, but could it be even conceived of without some individual imagination?

Invention is an individual, creative thing that committees are patently terrible at. Yet, how to use inventions (like the atomic bomb, or sex reassignment surgery) is too often a very individual thing.

Democratic governments offer individuals a say in how the world they live in is managed, and yet sometimes that say is overridden by a majority that wants it managed another way. If you lose, should your individual preference be suppressed -- or should you go to war to get your way?

Happy philosophising!
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Democratic governments offer individuals a say in how the world they live in is managed, and yet sometimes that say is overridden by a majority that wants it managed another way. If you lose, should your individual preference be suppressed -- or should you go to war to get your way?

Happy philosophising!
Seriously though, the question is "how much of your individuality do you have to sacrifice to live in a community?". Or, from the other pov, "how much group identity do we need to keep the group together?".
Liberals tend to value individuality allowing for bigger groups as few rules are to be followed to belong to the group. Conservatives/authoritarians tend to focus on group consistency - which makes the group smaller but more powerful.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
For humans? Social cohesion, without a doubt. To use a comparison, think about another highly social animal: ants. Nothing about ants and their ways of life work without social cohesion. In fairness, ants are significantly more developed on the social cohesion front than humans, but humans couldn't get away without it either. Not when human reproduction is so utterly ludicrous and burdensome; it'd have been a biological dead end very quickly. We wouldn't have even gotten to the wheel or basic tool use without being social animals and prioritizing small group cohesion.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Stonehenge could never have been built without social cohesion and a commitment to shared outcomes, but could it be even conceived of without some individual imagination?

I guess when a group fully commits the vision that comes from a leader, then the two things work in combination, but the collective interest seems like it tips the scales, somehow.

Invention is an individual, creative thing that committees are patently terrible at. Yet, how to use inventions (like the atomic bomb, or sex reassignment surgery) is too often a very individual thing.

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree, as it seems like mass fashion dictates how different inventions are often used. Again, it seems like the same point can made here, as with the prior one. I suspect there was a very regimented way to use stonehenge, that was dictated by a religion of some kind, though I could be wrong.

Democratic governments offer individuals a say in how the world they live in is managed, and yet sometimes that say is overridden by a majority that wants it managed another way. If you lose, should your individual preference be suppressed -- or should you go to war to get your way?

I don't know if we have an exact political term for what you are describing, and that's part of what makes it a confounding thing for all of us

Overall, I'd think that your primary question is what all of the human process is in the middle of figuring out - it is not clear at this point.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Lions are magnificent. They operate best in groups. Tigers are magnificent. They operate best alone.

Not every person is a lion. Not every person is a tiger. Some excel in packs. Some excel as individuals. Others do not excel at all.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have long been interested in trying to understand human nature, and how we cope with the challenge of being both a social species, but with the capacity for self-regard and self-preservation, even at the expense of defaulting on our social obligations.

I'd like to investigate this further by asking members to answer a simple poll question: "Which is more important to the advancement of humanities survival -- social cohesion or individual freedom of expression?"

Here are a few things to think about:

Stonehenge could never have been built without social cohesion and a commitment to shared outcomes, but could it be even conceived of without some individual imagination?

Invention is an individual, creative thing that committees are patently terrible at. Yet, how to use inventions (like the atomic bomb, or sex reassignment surgery) is too often a very individual thing.

Democratic governments offer individuals a say in how the world they live in is managed, and yet sometimes that say is overridden by a majority that wants it managed another way. If you lose, should your individual preference be suppressed -- or should you go to war to get your way?

Happy philosophising!
Social cohesion and individual expression aren't mutually exclusive.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Not every person is a lion. Not every person is a tiger.
No person is a lion. No person is a tiger. All people are humans; we are social creatures that value independent expression, optimally in harmony with our neighbors. Disruptions to the social order are viewed negatively - ranging from judgmental annoyance to full ostracizing - yet total conformity is not desired for it's lack of social life.

Both Individual Expression and Social Cohesion are necessary in equal measure to the human social experience.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
If I choose social cohesion, I vote for China's attempt to totally control the individual. If I vote for the individual I vote for the "tragedy of the commons" and other ills.

Therefore I choose the option you did not allow: both are important and a balance between them is best.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No person is a lion. No person is a tiger. All people are humans; we are social creatures that value independent expression, optimally in harmony with our neighbors. Disruptions to the social order are viewed negatively - ranging from judgmental annoyance to full ostracizing - yet total conformity is not desired for it's lack of social life.

Both Individual Expression and Social Cohesion are necessary in equal measure to the human social experience.
Hah! A lot you know. For example I am a giraffe!

My apologies to the OP.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
It probably needs a third option - as to the circumstances dictating such - given that the choice of either is a bit too black and white as to how I see possible behaviours - so no voting from me. One might contrast the gun-loving freedoms for Americans versus some of the religion-loving countries (Iran or Afghanistan) as being extreme examples - and neither being countries in which I want to live. :oops:
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The fetishisation of personal liberty over all other social values leads inevitably to the exploitation of the weak by the strong, the poor by the rich, and the poor benighted earth by the very worst of humankind, those who always interpret freedom to mean “my freedom to abuse you”.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The fetishisation of personal liberty over all other social values leads inevitably to the exploitation of the weak by the strong, the poor by the rich, and the poor benighted earth by the very worst of humankind, those who always interpret freedom to mean “my freedom to abuse you”.
The fetishisation of social cohesion has led in the past and will inevitably lead to ostracisation and ultimately abuse of deviant minorities. It is the dictatorship of the very worst of humankind who always interpret social cohesion to mean "those who are not like us don't belong here".
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The fetishisation of social cohesion has led in the past and will inevitably lead to ostracisation and ultimately abuse of deviant minorities. It is the dictatorship of the very worst of humankind who always interpret social cohesion to mean "those who are not like us don't belong here".


That's not how I interpret social cohesion. The opposite, in fact. Intolerance of minorities is hardly conducive to cohesion. Societies - such as the USA - which espouse civil liberty as their highest ideal, often exhibit in practice the least tolerance of social deviancy. In the UK I do not have the freedom to promote or propagate hatred and division, and neither should I. My liberties, both legal and personal, are tempered by my responsibilities to my fellow citizens. Because of this, I can peacefully go about my business with little likelihood of being shot by some party who, disapproving of my lifestyle, is at liberty to own a lethal weapon.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I think social cohesion is required for survival, however as a group of humans gets larger the benefits of (uniform) social cohesion seem to degrade. Suppose individuality has some benefits for survival, too? Can we get individuals to opt into social cohesion? Then we get the survival benefits of both things.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Other's have expressed my sentiments pretty well here in that one without the other leads nowhere good. Finding the proper balance is difficult and largely subjective but also necessary.

Since the poll doesn't have that option though, I went with "The individual reigns supreme." I'm largely asocial and I'm certainly misanthropic so I felt like it would be hypocritical of me to pick the other option. I'd effectively be saying, "Yes, social cohesion is more important. Just leave me out of it and get the hell off my lawn!"
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which is more important to the advancement of humanities survival -- social cohesion or individual freedom of expression?

I think you'd agree that it's not an either-or matter for the humanist, who promotes maximally tolerant societies (all is tolerated except intolerance) with guaranteed personal rights in which people are autonomous citizens free to pursue happiness as they see fit within a legal framework that protects citizens from one another. One can psychologically be part a community working together for a mutual benefit while enjoying individual freedom of action and expression.

On a related note, American culture is seeing a breakdown of social cohesion that adopts the language of freedom of the individual without regard to the whole, as when we heard the forbidding of working some jobs and attending some venues tyranny. These are people who have little to no interest in or empathy for others, and they appear to be growing in number. They don't care that children and parents are terrified to attend schools because of guns. They only care about having unfettered access to as many of them as it takes to make them feel safe. They scream at people working entry level jobs or walking through their neighborhoods. They support strongman presidents and insurrection.

Where's the social cohesion there? Of course, that's the point of the incessant conservative propaganda - to sow dissent and division, to destroy community. So, this emphasizes the value and importance of a sense of we encompassing most of the society, where they are a minority of antisocial outliers rather than half the country.
 
Top