Recap
Conclusions from the previous session:
- Insecurity as key constituent of human nature.
- Society as a safety net.
It was asked about if anyone had any problems with the above conclusions. It seemed all accepted it. On further investigation important feedback was given by multiple students about the previous session:
There were too many concepts discussed. No clarity was there as to why these were discussed and how they relate to Society and Science. It was confusing and It was vague.
I agree totally. But most of it was not intended and shows the instructor’s amateurishness in the subject as well as in the art of teaching.
Nonetheless, the objective of the previous session, it was explained, was to lay down a basis for formation of societies or groups of individuals who by themselves, alone would generally feel highly insecure and face sever challenges to their existence. This could be one of the significant reasons for formation of a society.
I proposed two more statements and asked about if they further agreed with these:
- The pursuit of safety is the defining feature of all life.
Here, MJ disagreed saying “The pursuit of happiness” was the defining feature of life. Counter question: Can one be insecure and still be happy? Consensus was YES! which was very interesting to note as i thought otherwise. Although no examples were shared, i can imagine a poor family, insecure in resources and future, but still happy. Another counter question, can a ant pursue happiness? Someone replied it could, who knows. This was going in weird direction where i didnt know what to do, so we decided to focus back. In retrospect, this discussion could have continued as exploration, the main pedagogy of this course. It should not have mattered if one had a priory knowledge and facts about the case, one could still play around the ideas and think and try to be reasonable.
2. Self-perpetuation is another defining feature.
There were no specific responses to this statement. What i intended to keep on the table was the idea of procreation, which later on i wished to apply to “Social Organisms” – the concept that subcultures/traditions could be seen as living beings themselves. Anyways, i think this was a very point which i didn’t research well enough or know about enough, and yet introduced. Hence no discussion or responses. (Poor students must suffer!).
I asked about if the group had any specific disagreements from the statements made in the previous session, that dissent was lacking. However, SD mentioned that enough dissent was expressed, which is great, but could we have more? Dissent was essential to this class, and that brings about discussion and content. Ideally it would be nice if there are 11 people in class holding 11 differing opinions on the same subject, no binaries and certainly no singularities! However, lets see if this tall order will hold true. This was all good, the spirit was good for further journey!
I think JP raised an important question, related to dissent. I will try to paraphrase:
If the need of humans is to form groups and agree with each other to feel secure, then doesn’t science and dissent go against the “group-up to feel secure” idea?
JP mentioned the above with reference to falsification theory by someone name Karl Popper. Then stupidly, I just repeated the same as JP, but not knowing it was originally from Popper who first proposed it. I had probably read it in the wonderful first chapter of Conceptual Physics by Paul Hewitt (recommended by Dr. Priyadarshini Karve). So thanks to JP for enlightening the group!
Various students answered this. Unfortunately I do not remember the responses, but reflecting now on this question, let me put my take on it this way: For making groups, one must compromise on individual opinions and link on common needs (read as counter to insecurities?). However to lead the group to the right direction, much thought and discussion is needed, dissent must come about to keep broad scopes of an aspect. This, kind of seems contradictory to the ‘agreement pact’? So there’s a conflict, but a necessary one. If done in a healthy way, this could be good for the members individually and the group. This is also why leadership becomes important for the group, someone who all parties agree to follow and trust as being the arbiter of truth and direction. I maybe wrong or naive in what is clearly an ‘opinion’, but i would be happy to update or correct it whenever in future.
Next came the discussion of size of groups. Previously, KG hinted at how as the group size increases, there could be rising insecurities within the group about resources. JP raised the same question here and that was discussed. Unfortunately i am not able to remember the discussion, but it seemed and interesting one.
What humans do to feel safe?
The group was next asked this question. What do we do to make ourselves feel secure, safe and healthy in all possible ways? Maybe i was not very clear, or didn’t give them enough time to reflect, the responses weren’t much. Also i guess the class seemed a bit sleepy and bored. So I am summarizing what i wised would come about in the discussions in response to the above question:
- Look before we leap, check out things from afar.
- Separate known from unknown and keep close to the former – familiarity – seek similarity in strangers
- Foresee tough times and plan for resources. (this we discovered through discussion)
- Go to ones who makes us feel good. (also discovered)
- Is feeling good same as feeling safe? (discussed but fizzled out)
- Handover our protection to stronger members. – the worry and stress of self-protection can be very high. Lookout for members with higher self-confidence and exuberance, associate with them. (some discussion here)
- Extend similar acts and thoughts to others whom we care about.
How groups help members feel secure?
Next i wanted to discussion on how groups form and sustain. Again, either memory is failing me or there discussion was just murmurs here and there, but not much came about. I think this could have been an interesting discussion.
- Formation of groups against a common fear.
- Trust – the glue that builds and bonds a society
- Large number of examples to follow! – traditions
BREAK
The penalty of security
What is the cost of achieving this heightened security – security from whom? – freedom – What is the price we, as social members, must pay in all the bonding and trusting and trying to achieve what at best could be described as a perpetually transient state of security ? Though not put across in such words, following videos were shown and discussed.
- On Attention – how little we have and can spare – the idea here was to emphasize how little conscious we are of everything around us. So less and narrow is our attentionspan, that even if we wish would can only fathom so much. The remaining is all in the subconscious and not accessible to us directly. The video seemed a bit fast and grainy. Also the projector and computer connection seemed occupied with its own self-doubts. End effect, the intended effect was disturbed by the noise.
- Failure of traditions – 5 monkey experiment – Had a nice discussion on the video and how it related to traditions. While it was mentioned that the original reasons were lost, even new discovery was discouraged in a traditionally bound group. But why worry, why bother to inquire more for the bananas if otherwise the monkey group could be assumed to be regularly fed? A nice discussion ensued on “lost opportunities”. UB asked a very interesting and innocent question: how can we recover the original context if only we have been handed down traditions? Difficult to answer, i could only say that historians and anthropologists are probably also have similar pursuits. [Examples?]
- Conformity even in the face of obvious wrong – Asch exmeriments – this was given as a homework.
- Social organisms – is that a thing? – Can a tradition or subculture be considered as a living thing and if so wont it try its best to survive? – Makmurdo’s essay , another one but mostly using biological examples – this was discussed only in the last 10 minutes.
- Some very interesting psychology experiments – only for reference here…