Poll: Conflict or Cohesion?

[Eddi]

We can look at society as being characterised by division and conflict and/or by unity and cohesion.

But normatively, what side are you on? The side of conflict and division or the side of unity and cohesion?

Do you seek change/progress, or continuity/stability? - Or both???

Discuss.

For me: I think one person’s social cohesion is another person’s class domination! - I believe there is a conflict of sectional interests and of ideologies but also that there is such a thing as a common good that may suit all sections of society. So I’m voting for “both”. I’d like to see the implementation of a status quo that suits the common good. Were such a status quo to emerge I would defend it as a reactionary even though currently my politics are progressive, given the current status quo!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I tried to see things realistically and avoid entertaining pipe dreams.

The people in power will never change their mind or relinquish that power in any way.

Whether your left or right wing, force is what rules the land in the end. It's always been that way since the dawn of man, and always will be into the future until the very end of our illustrious ape lineage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Justice, justice shall you pursue ..."

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do not take part i politics at all any more. So i answer other in your poll.

 

[shunyadragon]

The foundation of sense of community and belonging in Western Society which is grounded in an ancient religious, cultural and racial separation, exclusivity and belief in supremacy. This includes specifically Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Things are changing some towards a more universal perspective of humanity and relationships. Attempts of 'band aide' reform cannot cure the underlying cancer.

 

[Yazata]

We can look at society as being characterised by division and conflict and/or by unity and cohesion.

But normatively, what side are you on? The side of conflict and division or the side of unity and cohesion?

Unity and cohesion seem to me to come first, since without them there is no society. 'Society' isn't just a given, something that can merely be assumed. Societies can fail, they can collapse. If there isn't any sense of community, there's just a bunch of angry, uncomprehending, competing strangers jostling in some crazy battle of all-against-all.

In order for communities to succeed and for societies to exist, the things that people share in common have to be stronger than what divides them. That's just a basic axiom of social life.

Do you seek change/progress, or continuity/stability? - Or both???

The fundamental problem there is that "change" is not synonymous with "progress" (even if such a thing as progress exists). It's much easier to break than to build.

I'm not even convinced that "progress" exists in any objective sense. History doesn't have one preferred direction, some inexorable movement toward some promised Kingdom. That's just a cultural holdover from a certain kind of religious mythology.

It isn't like the future = good and the past = evil, so humanity's job is to push "forward" towards the future as quickly as possible by breaking as many old things as possible. That's just stupidity. The past isn't evil, it's our hard-won inheritance from our parents, and from the struggles and hard work of everyone who came before us. And the future isn't some promised land. There are countless possible futures out there, some of them perhaps desirable, others less so. Adolph Hitler had a desired future and saw himself very much as an agent of "change". Exterminating the human race in nuclear war is another kind of change.

So change needs to be towards something desirable, and how do we determine that? Are our values, norms and goals objective and visible to all, things that are written on the very fabric of reality? Or are our values, norms and goals socially constructed, the product of community social consensus?

If "change" is driven by some self-appointed elite of people who believe that they are better than everyone else, who believe that they have clearer moral vision than the rest of the common herd, if "change" is driven by some self-appointed "vanguard party" against the will of the majority, we have a prescription for authoritarianism and for totalitarianism. Shared purpose needs to come willingly and can't be coerced. That means actually talking to those who aren't marching with sufficient vigor towards some dreamed of future, it means actually listening and responding to their concerns.

 

[Augustus]

We can look at society as being characterised by division and conflict and/or by unity and cohesion.

I voted other. Politics and society are a matter of scale.

The greater the scale, the greater the division and conflict, especially in the modern technological environment.

Whether it's a circle of friends, a work team, a project, or a polity, their ability to function effectively versus size is represented as a bell curve.

Too small you miss out on some of the benefits of diversity and cooperation, too large and your group fractures and gains diseconomies of scale (administrative difficulties, communication problems, abstraction and impersonality, fragility, distancing of decision makers from the consequences of their decisions, etc.)

 

[sun rise]

Whether your left or right wing, force is what rules the land in the end. It's always been that way since the dawn of man, and always will be into the future until the very end of our illustrious ape lineage.

I agree with you about the past. Unlike your pessimistic view, I'm optimistic for the future. Like physical evolution, social evolution happens. What was normative and accepted as the way of the world, cannibalism and slavery, is now no longer morally acceptable.

Evolution is not linear and not without pain, but it does happen.

 

[Left Coast]

We can look at society as being characterised by division and conflict and/or by unity and cohesion.

But normatively, what side are you on? The side of conflict and division or the side of unity and cohesion?

Do you seek change/progress, or continuity/stability? - Or both???

Discuss.

For me: I think one person’s social cohesion is another person’s class domination! - I believe there is a conflict of sectional interests and of ideologies but also that there is such a thing as a common good that may suit all sections of society. So I’m voting for “both”. I’d like to see the implementation of a status quo that suits the common good. Were such a status quo to emerge I would defend it as a reactionary even though currently my politics are progressive, given the current status quo!

It depends exactly what you mean so I said both.

In terms of my individual interactions with other people in the world, my in-person tendency is to be agreeable and try to find areas of common ground, unless a discussion is specifically drawn out that asks for my (differing) opinion. My family is almost entirely conservative with the exception of my partner and I, so at family dinners I'm usually the lone voice crying in the wilderness.

However, at the end of the day politics is a competitive sport. My political goal is the defeat of the opponent so that the laws and politicians I support can be put in place. So I vote and support political strategies with that goal in mind.

 

[osgart]

One has to have a message or Creed that is about compassion, and unity despite our differences, to be an effective leader. Otherwise one is just stirring up the lions, and causing further division. If one don't have a clear initiative to firmly stand on solid moral grounds then they are like shifting sand and no one is going to have any clear direction.

Compassion unites, hatred divides. You have to work across the aisle with your opponent and realize that unchecked, unbridled capitalism doesn't always serve social interests of all people.

Politics does not have all the answers anyway. That's up to the citizens and their mentality, and attitude toward reality and other people. Politics is a reflection, or a mirror into what the citizens are like.

We either build fortresses of power against our opposition, or we reach out to help the other side.