5 ms·

> The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people

> The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. A strong social fabric at it's root is things like being willing to talk to all walks of life and not nurturing a fear of the unknown.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
>Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Would you care to point to one, or cite some studies to show their effectiveness vs those that are homogeneous in nature? I'd argue that a strong sense of shared identity, such as that provided previously by religion in the West, and which still currently holds strength elsewhere, is crucial to the success of a given society. The War state, and then post-War state, of the West also had a strong sense of shared identity and bound together as a result. Evidence points towards it. The current state of the West is a testament to the disarray caused in a heterogeneous society with no sense of shared identity and the mutual obligations that result from it. The divisions and gaps are only widening, the issues around it are only becoming worse, and those who stand to benefit from it are using it to its full advantage.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Comparable to what? I mean, just as one well known and google-able example, the Roman empire was obviously thoroughly heterogeneous. Maybe the key is that most people couldn't really travel? So no one from Lutetia ever really knew any woman from Alexandria for instance. Whereas today in Paris, obviously, a large number of people know people from Alexandria. EDIT: I realize that if you were in the Roman Army, you were an exception to the general rule of people not knowing people from other parts of the empire. Obviously, Romans had to fight together against the barbarians. (Or rather, against the other future Romans.) But that would be an example of one of the few ways your average Joe in Marseille would get to know your average Joe in Leptis Magna. But I digress. Most large, long lasting empires were not only enormous, but heterogeneous by necessity. Rome, China after warring states (even before actually), definitely Persia. In fact, I can't really think up any examples of contemporaneous homogeneous societies that could have even dreamed of competing with the historic behemoths.
  - dave_b 7y ago
    I think the heterogeneity of empires is a contributing factor to their eventual dissolution though. They tend to last a century or two at their height, and then start to break apart as more cohesive nations emerge. That’s not such a long time as far as societies go. And the issue at hand isn’t whether homogenous societies could “compete” with empires, but whether they’re more likely to persist (and have less alienation among the people).
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      But China, Persia, and Rome lasted a whole lot longer than a century or two. If memory serves, most of the college books considered the height of Roman quality of life, as well as Roman influence in the world, to be the time of Diocletian's reign. (I think he was the tetrarchy guy, but people are free to correct me if there are real historians out there.) In any case, obviously Rome was heterogeneous, again just going by memory here, but it must have been at least before the first century BC. (Assuming the Bible is to be believed. Also, why else would we call it "BC" and "AD"?) So that's like, at least 4 centuries right there. Persia you can probably go what? At least a thousand years. And that's assuming you only start at Cyrus the Great. China is China. Different dynasties like the British, but even if you only counted the dynasties that ruled uncontested over all of the different ethnic groups, you'd be talking about a millennia or two at least as a political grouping whether by birthright, marriage or usurpation. Just pointing out that while some heterogeneous empires certainly fail, all of the empires in mankind's history that were great and long lasting, were unquestionably heterogeneous. I mean, some people may correct me on some details here and there, but in essentials that can't even be debated. It's extremely difficult to take out these empires. And despite what is generally believed, the historical evidence indicates that well run empires are not at all likely to fail on their own. (Even in the face of élites fighting each other, well run places just stand by and watch the old emperor get assassinated, and then, Hey! New emperor in Rome today!) Even at their heights, unless you have a few millennia to wait for failure, they typically just haven't gone away as fast as the homogeneous empires have.
  - buboard 7y ago
    Subjugation is not multiculturalism though. Those cultures weren’t free
- gerbilly 7y ago
  > I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Hellenistic Greece perhaps? Lasted for 300 years or more, and it was very diverse.
- buboard 7y ago
  All empires were multi-ethnic, multi-religious. That doesn’t mean they were tolerant, of course, or that they did anything to promote tolerance and culture mixing. The fear of the emperor/king/sultan kept them all together. Another example is Yugoslavia. Or USSR The common ingredient in all of them: Unfree It s perhaps not an accident that liberal democratic nation states were culturally homogeneous
- pixelbash 7y ago
  Change causes instability. We are only just now entering an era when large segments of the population aren't defined by a large tribe like religion or where they were born. The instability right now is arguably the result of cultural whiplash as older generations and their view of themselves are heavily out of sync with how younger generations live their lives and see the world. In any case there are so many factors at play here that assigning multiculturalism as the key factor when it's always existed seems to be excluding a lot of other key issues.
dave_b 7y ago
It’s all well and good to encourage understanding and whatnot, but the question is what actually works in reality on a societal level. It might sound nice to say “a strong economic system is not based on greed but on a willingness of each person to contribute to the best of their ability,” but it turns out that philosophy doesn’t work very well when dealing with large groups of people. I think the same could be said about your statement.
buboard 7y ago
you have to define "be like other people". Racially, you don't have to be, perhaps not even religious-wise. But try being a libertarian in sweden, or a boomer among millennials

cmdshiftf4 7y ago

>Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Would you care to point to one, or cite some studies to show their effectiveness vs those that are homogeneous in nature? I'd argue that a strong sense of shared identity, such as that provided previously by religion in the West, and which still currently holds strength elsewhere, is crucial to the success of a given society. The War state, and then post-War state, of the West also had a strong sense of shared identity and bound together as a result. Evidence points towards it. The current state of the West is a testament to the disarray caused in a heterogeneous society with no sense of shared identity and the mutual obligations that result from it. The divisions and gaps are only widening, the issues around it are only becoming worse, and those who stand to benefit from it are using it to its full advantage.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Comparable to what? I mean, just as one well known and google-able example, the Roman empire was obviously thoroughly heterogeneous. Maybe the key is that most people couldn't really travel? So no one from Lutetia ever really knew any woman from Alexandria for instance. Whereas today in Paris, obviously, a large number of people know people from Alexandria. EDIT: I realize that if you were in the Roman Army, you were an exception to the general rule of people not knowing people from other parts of the empire. Obviously, Romans had to fight together against the barbarians. (Or rather, against the other future Romans.) But that would be an example of one of the few ways your average Joe in Marseille would get to know your average Joe in Leptis Magna. But I digress. Most large, long lasting empires were not only enormous, but heterogeneous by necessity. Rome, China after warring states (even before actually), definitely Persia. In fact, I can't really think up any examples of contemporaneous homogeneous societies that could have even dreamed of competing with the historic behemoths.
- dave_b 7y ago
  I think the heterogeneity of empires is a contributing factor to their eventual dissolution though. They tend to last a century or two at their height, and then start to break apart as more cohesive nations emerge. That’s not such a long time as far as societies go. And the issue at hand isn’t whether homogenous societies could “compete” with empires, but whether they’re more likely to persist (and have less alienation among the people).
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    But China, Persia, and Rome lasted a whole lot longer than a century or two. If memory serves, most of the college books considered the height of Roman quality of life, as well as Roman influence in the world, to be the time of Diocletian's reign. (I think he was the tetrarchy guy, but people are free to correct me if there are real historians out there.) In any case, obviously Rome was heterogeneous, again just going by memory here, but it must have been at least before the first century BC. (Assuming the Bible is to be believed. Also, why else would we call it "BC" and "AD"?) So that's like, at least 4 centuries right there. Persia you can probably go what? At least a thousand years. And that's assuming you only start at Cyrus the Great. China is China. Different dynasties like the British, but even if you only counted the dynasties that ruled uncontested over all of the different ethnic groups, you'd be talking about a millennia or two at least as a political grouping whether by birthright, marriage or usurpation. Just pointing out that while some heterogeneous empires certainly fail, all of the empires in mankind's history that were great and long lasting, were unquestionably heterogeneous. I mean, some people may correct me on some details here and there, but in essentials that can't even be debated. It's extremely difficult to take out these empires. And despite what is generally believed, the historical evidence indicates that well run empires are not at all likely to fail on their own. (Even in the face of élites fighting each other, well run places just stand by and watch the old emperor get assassinated, and then, Hey! New emperor in Rome today!) Even at their heights, unless you have a few millennia to wait for failure, they typically just haven't gone away as fast as the homogeneous empires have.
- buboard 7y ago
  Subjugation is not multiculturalism though. Those cultures weren’t free
gerbilly 7y ago
> I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Hellenistic Greece perhaps? Lasted for 300 years or more, and it was very diverse.
buboard 7y ago
All empires were multi-ethnic, multi-religious. That doesn’t mean they were tolerant, of course, or that they did anything to promote tolerance and culture mixing. The fear of the emperor/king/sultan kept them all together. Another example is Yugoslavia. Or USSR The common ingredient in all of them: Unfree It s perhaps not an accident that liberal democratic nation states were culturally homogeneous
pixelbash 7y ago
Change causes instability. We are only just now entering an era when large segments of the population aren't defined by a large tribe like religion or where they were born. The instability right now is arguably the result of cultural whiplash as older generations and their view of themselves are heavily out of sync with how younger generations live their lives and see the world. In any case there are so many factors at play here that assigning multiculturalism as the key factor when it's always existed seems to be excluding a lot of other key issues.

dave_b 7y ago

It’s all well and good to encourage understanding and whatnot, but the question is what actually works in reality on a societal level. It might sound nice to say “a strong economic system is not based on greed but on a willingness of each person to contribute to the best of their ability,” but it turns out that philosophy doesn’t work very well when dealing with large groups of people. I think the same could be said about your statement.

buboard 7y ago

you have to define "be like other people". Racially, you don't have to be, perhaps not even religious-wise. But try being a libertarian in sweden, or a boomer among millennials