4 ms·

The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important

The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. So it is incumbent on people who use these metaphors to remember that in society the "parts" (i.e. each individual) do have value. Otherwise it's too easy to turn things around and say, "Terrorists are like disease, we must kill them all; that fast-growing ethnic group is like cancer, we must cut it out." I don't blame the author in this case as it's a very personal account, but readers should be sure to keep the distinction in mind.

smallnamespace 10y ago
The biggest difference between individuals and societies: our cells cannot propagate or survive on their own, whereas individuals can. As an analogy for society, a colony of bacteria or fungi would serve better than the human body.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  An individual completely separated from modern society would perform quite poorly. Or somewhat more poetically: No man is an island.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    A small group can splinter off and survive. My arm cannot survive on its own
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      A small group of people is not going to survive at a modern, first-world, technological level of civilisation, providing itself with oil, coal, electricity, silicon chips, cotton, synthetics, pharmaceuticals, food, lumber, iron, steel, aluminium, glass, etc., etc. It might manage to provide for itself at a ~1650 level of subsistence, in a favourable climate. Modern civilisation is a team sport.
      - smallnamespace 10y ago
        The point still stands -- your arm is not going to survive in any way shape or form, while small groups of people can and will, despite difficulties. Humans have survived the collapse of their own societies before, but no cells survive the death of a body (HeLa cell line notwithstanding).
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        What group is it you're hiving off from society exactly? Because in the same way that your arm is an integral subunit of a whole which makes no sense without that contextualising state, any organised subunit of modern society will stop functioning in its subunit sense. An isolated business, or factory, or town, or neighbourhood, or even family, will no longer have its prior context. You'll all but certainly see a massive amount of mortality. Some very small sets of individuals might survive, but, again, within an entirely different context. And only in the right nourishing environment. Much as a few select cells from an arm might, if sufficiently general, continue to exist if put in an appropriate nutrient solution, protected from bacteria or other disease, and generally cared for. I don't think you're conning on to the systems view of this concept, and the distinction between individual and society, or cell and organism.
        smallnamespace 10y ago
        I agree with everything you said, but I think you're completely missing my point. > any organised subunit of modern society _will stop functioning in its subunit sense_. Yes, there will be high mortality, but that former subunit can go on and recreate a new, different society. An arm will just die. A 90% mortality rate is completely different than 100% mortality. My point is that the analogy between society and the body is very imperfect. The body is much more fascist, and the biggest reason is because of how reproduction works. Evolution has spent over a billion years shaping multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms; sexual reproduction provides strong selective pressure to favor cells that contribute to the organism as a whole. By contrast, large-scale human society (larger than a tribe of ~100 people) has only existed for a few thousand years. That's why we value individualism, liberty, and so forth -- it's literally against human nature for society to completely dictate to the individual, whereas it's natural and correct for a cell to sacrifice everything (e.g. apoptosis) for the body, because only by helping the body can the cell help propagate its own genes. Just think about it for a second -- cells regularly check themselves for damage, and if they determine that they are too damaged, they immediately commit suicide. If they fail to commit suicide, the immune system kills them. Can you imagine mass, compulsory euthanasia for terminally ill people, but enforced by the police + military? Because that's one implication of the 'society == body' analogy. If you want another example, ant and bee society show much more eusociality than human societies. Workers very readily sacrifice themselves to defend the colony/hive, whereas it takes a lot of training and effort to get humans to fight effectively. That makes sense, because eusocial insects are more closely related to one another than humans are to each other, and workers cannot reproduce while there's a queen. The mechanism of reproduction strongly influences the level of eusociality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eusociality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eusociality
kordless 10y ago
Fascism is also highly inefficient.
tmptmp 10y ago
>>The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. Yes, and also the problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially communist also. In communism, the individual has no place if he/she is lesser equal and has almost all importance/power if he/she is more equal like politburo member or their crony.
- nbb 10y ago
  No.

smallnamespace 10y ago

The biggest difference between individuals and societies: our cells cannot propagate or survive on their own, whereas individuals can. As an analogy for society, a colony of bacteria or fungi would serve better than the human body.

dredmorbius 10y ago
An individual completely separated from modern society would perform quite poorly. Or somewhat more poetically: No man is an island.
- rtpg 10y ago
  A small group can splinter off and survive. My arm cannot survive on its own
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    A small group of people is not going to survive at a modern, first-world, technological level of civilisation, providing itself with oil, coal, electricity, silicon chips, cotton, synthetics, pharmaceuticals, food, lumber, iron, steel, aluminium, glass, etc., etc. It might manage to provide for itself at a ~1650 level of subsistence, in a favourable climate. Modern civilisation is a team sport.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      The point still stands -- your arm is not going to survive in any way shape or form, while small groups of people can and will, despite difficulties. Humans have survived the collapse of their own societies before, but no cells survive the death of a body (HeLa cell line notwithstanding).
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        What group is it you're hiving off from society exactly? Because in the same way that your arm is an integral subunit of a whole which makes no sense without that contextualising state, any organised subunit of modern society will stop functioning in its subunit sense. An isolated business, or factory, or town, or neighbourhood, or even family, will no longer have its prior context. You'll all but certainly see a massive amount of mortality. Some very small sets of individuals might survive, but, again, within an entirely different context. And only in the right nourishing environment. Much as a few select cells from an arm might, if sufficiently general, continue to exist if put in an appropriate nutrient solution, protected from bacteria or other disease, and generally cared for. I don't think you're conning on to the systems view of this concept, and the distinction between individual and society, or cell and organism.
        smallnamespace 10y ago
        I agree with everything you said, but I think you're completely missing my point. > any organised subunit of modern society _will stop functioning in its subunit sense_. Yes, there will be high mortality, but that former subunit can go on and recreate a new, different society. An arm will just die. A 90% mortality rate is completely different than 100% mortality. My point is that the analogy between society and the body is very imperfect. The body is much more fascist, and the biggest reason is because of how reproduction works. Evolution has spent over a billion years shaping multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms; sexual reproduction provides strong selective pressure to favor cells that contribute to the organism as a whole. By contrast, large-scale human society (larger than a tribe of ~100 people) has only existed for a few thousand years. That's why we value individualism, liberty, and so forth -- it's literally against human nature for society to completely dictate to the individual, whereas it's natural and correct for a cell to sacrifice everything (e.g. apoptosis) for the body, because only by helping the body can the cell help propagate its own genes. Just think about it for a second -- cells regularly check themselves for damage, and if they determine that they are too damaged, they immediately commit suicide. If they fail to commit suicide, the immune system kills them. Can you imagine mass, compulsory euthanasia for terminally ill people, but enforced by the police + military? Because that's one implication of the 'society == body' analogy. If you want another example, ant and bee society show much more eusociality than human societies. Workers very readily sacrifice themselves to defend the colony/hive, whereas it takes a lot of training and effort to get humans to fight effectively. That makes sense, because eusocial insects are more closely related to one another than humans are to each other, and workers cannot reproduce while there's a queen. The mechanism of reproduction strongly influences the level of eusociality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eusociality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eusociality

kordless 10y ago

Fascism is also highly inefficient.

tmptmp 10y ago

>>The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. Yes, and also the problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially communist also. In communism, the individual has no place if he/she is lesser equal and has almost all importance/power if he/she is more equal like politburo member or their crony.

nbb 10y ago
No.