3 ms·

> How can society not be "a cage" in some respects? Calling it a cage is reductio ad absurdum. The presence of social norms does not invalidate the agency of

by danans 6y ago

> How can society not be "a cage" in some respects? Calling it a cage is reductio ad absurdum. The presence of social norms does not invalidate the agency of humans or groups of humans in the way a cage does. Characterizing it as a cage is a strawman, often used by those who would simply like to destroy it and erect a "cage" of their own preference.

pessimizer 6y ago
> The presence of social norms does not invalidate the agency of humans or groups of humans in the way a cage does. I'm not sure how you can say this with such confidence. Surely it depends on what the social norms are and how they are enforced (which could be with a literal cage.)
- danans 6y ago
  That's exactly my point. Essentializing about society being a cage that prevents people from being fully human removes all nuance as to which social norms are pro-social and which are anti-social, which norms are suffocating, and which norms actually provide the freedom from fear that people need in order to exist without constant anxiety. It treats all of them the same - as shackles on the "freedom" necessary to be a "full human".
PaulHoule 6y ago
I qualified it with "in some respects". Everybody gets benefits from civilization but most people feel stressed at least some of the times because "you can't always get what you want.". In the state of nature you could blame nature (no food because of environment cycles) but in civilization you blame other people or institutions. (No food because your local government wants your ethnic group to die.) Freud posits 'man vs civilization' as an unavoidable conflict because the alternative to civilization is having a 10 million person carrying capacity on this world. That is very different from r.d laing, Thomas szatz and other l. Ron Hubbard antipsychotics who think schizophrenia is a choice.
kortilla 6y ago
There are countries where women cannot drive, cannot show their faces, etc. Their agency is very much invalidated by the social norms. In other countries the social norms will have you killed for being gay. This is just as bad or worse than a cage in many respects.

by danans 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

> The presence of social norms does not invalidate the agency of humans or groups of humans in the way a cage does. I'm not sure how you can say this with such confidence. Surely it depends on what the social norms are and how they are enforced (which could be with a literal cage.)

danans 6y ago
That's exactly my point. Essentializing about society being a cage that prevents people from being fully human removes all nuance as to which social norms are pro-social and which are anti-social, which norms are suffocating, and which norms actually provide the freedom from fear that people need in order to exist without constant anxiety. It treats all of them the same - as shackles on the "freedom" necessary to be a "full human".

PaulHoule 6y ago

I qualified it with "in some respects". Everybody gets benefits from civilization but most people feel stressed at least some of the times because "you can't always get what you want.". In the state of nature you could blame nature (no food because of environment cycles) but in civilization you blame other people or institutions. (No food because your local government wants your ethnic group to die.) Freud posits 'man vs civilization' as an unavoidable conflict because the alternative to civilization is having a 10 million person carrying capacity on this world. That is very different from r.d laing, Thomas szatz and other l. Ron Hubbard antipsychotics who think schizophrenia is a choice.

kortilla 6y ago

There are countries where women cannot drive, cannot show their faces, etc. Their agency is very much invalidated by the social norms. In other countries the social norms will have you killed for being gay. This is just as bad or worse than a cage in many respects.