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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

[razz]

Seems to me that individualism goes in cycles. During the 30's, did not many of today's support systems get established? Are not the financial supports going on right now helping most?
Individualism is also a form of fear that is pervading some societies but not everyone in those societies or all the time. Poor communication skills and few venues for doing so on a regular basis lead to a lack of trust in others and greater defensiveness, IMHO. Social media has exaggerated the problem but was not the cause.

Basically, there seems to be confusion between individualism or "me first" vs "self reliance within a society.

[Teacher Terry]

More mom’s are working than probably 30 years ago so that could account for some of the loss of involvement.

[happystuff]

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.

From your description, it sounds like these families with children ARE actually participating and contributing, just not necessarily where YOU think they should be. Do you know how much they are volunteering at the schools - which is good for the community? Or recreational sports, which is also good for the community and sometimes the local businesses? Just saying that contributing and being part of a community happens in many ways - ALL for the benefit of that community.

[happystuff]

Basically, there seems to be confusion between individualism or "me first" vs "self reliance within a society.

Definitely a good point to ponder further!

[razz]

DD1 and I were talking about younger parents and their involvement. Youth groups are gobbling up vast hours of time as children are so organized these days and doing something every day now, it seems.
Part of the challenge is finding leaders to mentor those coming along. Add to that, the degree of judgement on whether what is done is being done according to someone's view which is then discussed online.
As my signature ;) says, gratitude for any effort and support would really help build.

[happystuff]

DD1 and I were talking about younger parents and their involvement. Youth groups are gobbling up vast hours of time as children are so organized these days and doing something every day now, it seems.
Part of the challenge is finding leaders to mentor those coming along. Add to that, the degree of judgement on whether what is done is being done according to someone's view which is then discussed online.
As my signature ;) says, gratitude for any effort and support would really help build.

Over-scheduling kids seemed to definitely be a "thing" when my kids were young - although we limited them significantly! But - at least in my area - I'm seeing less of it. Yes, the kids are participating, but NOT in "everything" like it used to be.

And I do like your tagline... I'm a firm believer in gratitude as well.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't know if the U.S. is even individualistic, depending on how one defines that (certainly not by some definitions: "showing great independence or individuality in thought or action" - yea nah, the u.s. has it's own form of strong pressures to conformity). I don't think it's the primary aspect. Compared to Asia it might be so.

[iris lilies]

From your description, it sounds like these families with children ARE actually participating and contributing, just not necessarily where YOU think they should be. Do you know how much they are volunteering at the schools - which is good for the community? Or recreational sports, which is also good for the community and sometimes the local businesses? Just saying that contributing and being part of a community happens in many ways - ALL for the benefit of that community.

yes, there is a ton of volunteering to support the charter elementary school here in our neighborhood, so you are right. This school is very important for our community. We wanted a local school for decades, and now we have it. We have an official neighborhood liaison who reports regularly at our neighborhood meetings.

edited to add:

I guess this is the 3rd wave of development for our neighborhood, the generating of small children and their support systems. Once phase 1 was completed in saving and renovating Victorian structures, and once phase 2 was in place with framework to improve and maintain businesses, parks, and surrounds, phase 3 came in. Phase 3 is children.

There are a couple of young families living here where one of the parents was raised here. Their parents, grandparents to the tiny tots, are still living here. One of them just bought a huge 5,000 sq house in need of major updating. Since he grew up in a house in a state of renovation, this one merely needing updating seems luxurious.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The most ironic is if you get involved in environmental groups and it's always: there are a bunch of people without kids but noone with kids. But they have no time etc. Yes, but just whose kids is it that are going to be inheriting these problems?

[bae]

I'd have a hard time seeing similar mass round ups in the US.

(cough) Manzanar (cough)

[iris lilies]

More mom’s are working than probably 30 years ago so that could account for some of the loss of involvement.
That is not what I see. The early pioneers who did have children here, and I can name 5 families off the top of my head, also had working mothers. Soke were teachers, some sold real,estate. But granted, real estate gives you a lot of control over your day and you can run kids to appointments and etc.

In my toney neighborhood now there are a LOT of stay at home moms.

[Teacher Terry]

IL, that’s really interesting.

[iris lilies]

IL, that’s really interesting.

Well I should say that I am acquainted with several stay at home mothers. Probably most of the moms here work, you are likely,
right, at least work part time.

I don’t know the percentages of stay at home versus working moms.
But there were working mothers in my generation who were the urban pioneers. People who live in this neighborhood work.

The only minor children on my Block have a working mother, and she’s a surgeon. The minor children down one block have a working mother who owns her own business, a hair salon.

[dmc]

I looked at your neighborhood around 30 years ago. The homes were nice, and the price at the time was also. But I had young kids, that would mean private school. I would not want to send my kids to St. Louis city schools. Also crime was a concern, you didn’t have to go far to get into some really bad areas.

Same with other areas in the city, pockets of beautiful old homes surrounded by ghetto. I have a friend that has a historical home in Ferguson, his home value is really in the dumpster. No reason to keep up the homes as there is no market for them.

[razz]

Same with other areas in the city, pockets of beautiful old homes surrounded by ghetto. I have a friend that has a historical home in Ferguson, his home value is really in the dumpster. No reason to keep up the homes as there is no market for them.

Sad comment to read. I see old parts of some cities being restored by young families who have faith in themselves, need a home and slowly build up a community. A family member is going through that exact experience, meeting neighbours with shared goals so building a community vegetable garden, supporting each other and, importantly, clearing out the toxic elements of 'johns' roaming by persistently working with local officials/police. It is quite wonderful to see what has been accomplished so far.

[ToomuchStuff]

I wonder if human beings are capable of creating a society that genuinely works for all?
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.
Rob
No.
Do you stand up for the homeless? Let them live or break into your property? What about the person that steals from your workplace? Stand up for someone's right, that you don't agree with (being armed)?
ETC.....

[Teacher Terry]

Areas of New Orleans that were unsafe are now being restored since the houses are big and old. On some of the empty lots new houses designed to look old are being built. A local told me that there were low income apartments that contributed to crime but they were destroyed by Katrina and not rebuilt so that helped the neighborhood.

[happystuff]

No.
Do you stand up for the homeless? Let them live or break into your property? What about the person that steals from your workplace? Stand up for someone's right, that you don't agree with (being armed)?
ETC.....

Don't mean to butt in, but, in my opinion, these are exactly the situations and people that having "a society that genuinely works for all" would hopefully eliminate/remedy.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The ever growing rank of homeless aren't by and large breaking into anyone's property IME, wrong population.

[ToomuchStuff]

The ever growing rank of homeless aren't by and large breaking into anyone's property IME, wrong population.


Doesn't have to be a large population, when the premise is ALL.