Deep realization today - coronavirus related.....

[gimmethesimplelife]

I wonder if human beings are capable of creating a society that genuinely works for all? I look at Austria - where there is still a sense of duty to society and non-maskers are very rare. However....because being approved of socially is MUCH more important there than in the US - it's also true this can lead to horrific outcomes. Such as Jews and others being rounded up and Austrians looking the other way.

I'd have a hard time seeing similar mass round ups in the US. There are too many people like me willing to stand up to the system - and more importantly, the individual is more important than society. Hence it's OK to not wear a mask - but no one's getting rounded up on Amtrak.

It seems very situational as to what points in time either way of being actually works, and for how many it actually works for. Rob

[Yppej]

I will take the risks and rewards of an individualistic society any day.

[catherine]

I do think the Scandinavian countries and some Asian countries (like Japan) have come the closest to it. Yet, OTOH, Scandinavian countries are not very welcoming to "others"--I had a Norwegian friend who married a Hispanic and they could not live in Norway--they were shunned.

I think our hard-wiring as "rugged individuals" makes it really hard to change our DNA. I think it will take a long evolution for people to realize that what's good for us collectively is good for us individually. "We're all in this together" is a foreign concept for most, I'm afraid.

That's why I like the economic concept of distributism. It is supportive of, and values, the work of all.

[happystuff]

I'm in favor of an individualistic society, but I wish more of the individuals were more kind, caring and compassionate individuals; I still see a bit too many selfish, self-centered individuals with entitlement issues. But I do believe that the good still out-number the not-so-good... thank goodness!

[catherine]

Very coincidentally, I was searching one of my top ten books "A Handmade Life" by William Coperthwaite for another quote, and I saw this one about "enlightened selfishness"

"We have been taught that 'selfishness' is bad, and in general, this is a useful and necessary rule. As a society we condemn selfishness as too great a concern for one's own being. Narrow, crabbed, ignorant selfishness hurts others and ourselves.

"Yet this principle may be at odds with a more inclusive conception of the social body. Perhaps the problem is not selfishness, because it is normal for an organism to be concerned with its own welfare, but rather shortsighted or unenlightened selfishness that supposes it can achieve well-being at the expense of others.

"When we see the social body as an extension of ourselves, narrow definitions of selfishness drop away. What we need is not less selfishness but a less narrow selfishness. We need selfishness that's enlightened, to the point where we see that our welfare is inextricably intertwingled with the welfare of all. Through enlightened selfishness I can recognized my neighbor's need as my own."

[herbgeek]

I think a big part of the difference between the individualism of the US, and more collective cultures is a result of Americans moving around a lot/reinventing themselves and staying in one area of other cultures. If you're in a small town as third or fourth generation, and intend to stay, you likely know everyone and their foibles, and they know yours. You are more likely to want to fit in, if you intend to never move. If however, you are likely to pick up and move every 5 years or so, you won't be so invested in your community and fitting in because long term it really won't matter for you.

[happystuff]

Very coincidentally, I was searching one of my top ten books "A Handmade Life" by William Coperthwaite for another quote, and I saw this one about "enlightened selfishness"

"We have been taught that 'selfishness' is bad, and in general, this is a useful and necessary rule. As a society we condemn selfishness as too great a concern for one's own being. Narrow, crabbed, ignorant selfishness hurts others and ourselves.

"Yet this principle may be at odds with a more inclusive conception of the social body. Perhaps the problem is not selfishness, because it is normal for an organism to be concerned with its own welfare, but rather shortsighted or unenlightened selfishness that supposes it can achieve well-being at the expense of others.

"When we see the social body as an extension of ourselves, narrow definitions of selfishness drop away. What we need is not less selfishness but a less narrow selfishness. We need selfishness that's enlightened, to the point where we see that our welfare is inextricably intertwingled with the welfare of all. Through enlightened selfishness I can recognized my neighbor's need as my own."

Yes, I agree with this. I like to think of it as "self-care"... one needs to take care of oneself so that they are then able to care for others - the whole "put your oxygen mask on and then help others get theirs on" - thing. But so many folks seem to stop at the "self-care" and don't move on to the "care for others". (sorry if not explaining this well. Still need more coffee this morning - lol)

[Teacher Terry]

For every instance of people being selfish you see others risking and sometimes losing their lives to save strangers. Lots of good in this world.

[happystuff]

I think a big part of the difference between the individualism of the US, and more collective cultures is a result of Americans moving around a lot/reinventing themselves and staying in one area of other cultures. If you're in a small town as third or fourth generation, and intend to stay, you likely know everyone and their foibles, and they know yours. You are more likely to want to fit in, if you intend to never move. If however, you are likely to pick up and move every 5 years or so, you won't be so invested in your community and fitting in because long term it really won't matter for you.

Not sure I agree with this. You can be nice no matter where you live. It is an individual choice one makes. If being nice only matters because of what others will think of you, well, that is one of the problems and leans more towards the "self-centered" aspect - in my opinion.

Edited to add: Well, maybe not a "problem", unless other, perhaps not so good behaviors are also influenced in such a way.

[iris lilies]

Not sure I agree with this. You can be nice no matter where you live. It is an individual choice one makes. If being nice only matters because of what others will think of you, well, that is one of the problems and leans more towards the "self-centered" aspect - in my opinion.

Edited to add: Well, maybe not a "problem", unless other, perhaps not so good behaviors are also influenced in such a way.

Anyone can “be nice “and show kindness in any situation regardless of being ruggedly individual or not. I don’t think that speaks to the deeper core of selflessness in building community.


I do think that people who move around a lot, in my neighborhood they tend to be renters, do not get involved in neighborhood issues. But we also have plenty of people who are transferred to St. Louis and live in my neighborhood for five years and then move on, but they still in that five year period leave their mark by working to build our social fabric.

I have mentioned this before, but one of the big demographic changes we have seen in our neighborhood now are many young families. Couples with young children into school-age range. School-age children were pretty rare around here when we moved in 30+ years ago.


And while we always wanted to be a family friendly neighborhood, now we find that one reason it’s so hard to get volunteers is because these families are busy raising their children. There’s nothing wrong with that. But I will also say urban pioneers here who had children built up the neighborhood so they managed to do both.


I guess what I see here now is a more insular in world focus of these households with children. Sure they go to the park, and participate in child oriented activities, and socialize with their “mom‘s” group but dont pitch in to help with the hard stuff. I see them taking and using the services that we’ve built up rather than contributing to those foundational services. On the other hand, the fact that they are very active in neighborhood activities is a huge positive sign.