From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 12:11:55 MST
>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:26:29 +0100
>From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
>Subject: Re: What do you think about a classless society?
>I have been thinking about this due to my writing of a study on the class
>effects of genetic enhancements.
That's an interesting topic. It seems to me that, if it is not kept in check
somehow, and assuming we don't have some sort of general technological leap
which outmodes human civilization itself in some way, this will eventually
lead to monstrous occurances in the social structure. Of course, it all
depends on certain things that I (or anybody, I think) don't know right now,
but...
>At the broadest level social class can be summarized as an open
>(to some degree) stratification system that is associated with
>a systematically unequal allocation of _resources_ and
>_constraints_.
>(http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/amsrev/theory/henry03-01.html)
>Now, as a liberal I do not think unequal allocation of resources a priori
>is something bad.
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "equal", but generally I think
that deviation from a roughly equal distribution of resources to each person
signals tendencies in a society which are anti-liberty, that is, some people
rewarding other people for actions they believe are good, and other people
punishing people for actions they do not like those people taking.
>There are still classes in many societies, but now the constraints are
>cultural and in many cases possible to overcome. You can become a corporate
>CEO even if you are an immigrant woman (but it is harder, of course), there
>are no rules *built into the state* that prevent it. Hence the state is
>more or less just in this respect.
But I don't think that's the point. I mean, having no classes doesn't isn't
the same as class mobility. You can have class mobility while still having
classes. Now, in our society, because of the barriers that people face,
there isn't too much mobility anyway--but these are not the same things. And
fundamentally the problem is not that you're barred from being a corporate
CEO--it's the things you'll have to say and do to get into that position. I
mean, it doesn't serve any purposes of power to say "You can't get into this
position even though you satisfy all our requirements better than anyone
else, say, because you're black". So even from thier perspective, the ruling
classes, this is rather foolish. But this isn't the fundamental problem--the
problem is the system of rewards and punishments which is used to coerce
people into obeying the needs of power.
>People that grow out with learned helpnessness and
>little value placed on academic achievement will not be
>motivated to get anywhere or take higher schooling. These
>constraints are only cultural, but can be rather serious
>barriers - the kid being taunted for his interest in school by
>his family and friend is nearly as efficiently stopped from
>higher education as if it had been outlawed (it is of course
>not impossible, but it is made unlikely).
Well, I don't really know if you can phrase this as a "cultural" thing or
not--but it seems to me that ultimately these problems result from
tendencies of coercion in society, sort of like how you mention. I mean, I
see people in the ghetto all the time when I ride the bus, and most of them
smoke. Why do they smoke? Well it seems to me that they smoke to look
tough, because they're all terrified of not looking tough, because they're
afraid of being preyed upon or something if they don't. And I think that has
a lot to do with capitalism, really: I mean, what kind of preying are we
talking about? Why do people prey upon eachother, anyway? Well, the most
obvious reason, and probably by far the largest one, is to gain control of
things--resources, members of the opposite sex, security, etc. Of course, it
isn't always direct: you might beat up some random person to make everyone
afraid of you, so that you'll be able to have your way in the future. So it
seems to me that if everyone was allowed to have resources regardless of the
dictates of the Powerful (who would then no longer be powerful) you would
see a whole lot less of this, you'd see a major drop in all kinds of social
problems which draw heavily from the capitalist system, which is built of
coercion and fear (see above).
>Even if people had *exactly* the same material preconditions
>their cultures would cause a differentiation into groups. This
>seems to be human nature; we think in terms of ingroups and
>outgroups, attributing good things to our group and bad things
>to other groups, valuing cohesion in the ingroup and punishing
>people breaking these arbitrary internal rules.
Well, I think a lot of times they aren't arbitrary, really: of course
sometimes they are, but a lot of times they're crafted to suit the needs of
a certain group. For example, sexism favors men, almost universally.
>At the same time culture can undermine class societies. It is
>worth noting that the power distances of for example
>Scandinavia are far less than most other countries, and it
>seems to correlate with a relatively more open class structure. Changing
>culture can do a lot.
Well, I think it's important to understand, cultures don't just form in some
vacuum somewhere independent of social problems--in fact in large measure
they form with social problems, they're very much related to one another.
>In the end I think we will never get a classless society, because people
>are different from each other and tend to shape themselves by their
>surrounding cultures. We might reach a situation where all constraints are
>just cultural constructs and resources are so accessible that there is no
>want, but that will still have people dividing themselves.
As they should, I think. But I don't see why that means that people need to
coerce eachother about it by threatening eachother with starvation or
exposure, or even conditions which would not allow a person to maximize
thier productivity as they would like (for example, not allowing them to
have a computer when computers are in abundance).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:54:13 -0500
>From: "natashavita@earthlink.net" <natashavita@earthlink.net>
>Subject: RE: What do you think about a classless society?
>From: Alexander Sheppard
> >So what about a classless society? Any comments on this possibility?<
>I would not want to exist in a society that has no class. :-)
>I realize this is not what you mean. But a society without merit, stature,
>value, virtue or differentiation would be like muddy painting - overworked,
>unclear perspective, lacking in richness of color or form, and tired.
>I'll take the arete and encourage fair play economics.
>Natasha Vita-More
Oh, well, I certainly agree with you about differentiation--I mean,
diversity is absolutely essential, that should be allowed for as much as
possible. But "merit, stature, value, virture" is something different--that
is, these are all determined by human beings, and then applied to other
human beings as if those human beings were not capable of thinking out for
themselves what they mean. "Stature" essentially amounts to obeying the
needs of power--etc. with the other things. So in one sense I agree--I mean,
sure we need those things--but people need to able to think them out for
themselves.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:17 MST