[p2p-research] Bruce E. Levine: Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?

[Paul D. Fernhout]

> On 12/7/09, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>> Just to suggest I'm stupid: :-) (Marco should like this. :-)
>>  "Bruce E. Levine: Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?"
>>  http://www.counterpunch.org/levine12042009.html
>> """
>> When people get caught up in humiliating abuse syndromes, more truths about
>> their oppressive humiliations don’t set them free. What sets them free is
>> morale.
>>  What gives people morale? Encouragement. Small victories. Models of
>> courageous behaviors. And anything that helps them break out of the vicious
>> cycle of pain, shut down, immobilization, shame over immobilization, more
>> pain, and more shut down.
>> ...
>>  An elitist assumption is that people don’t change because they are either
>> ignorant of their problems or ignorant of solutions. Elitist “helpers” think
>> they have done something useful by informing overweight people that they are
>> obese and that they must reduce their caloric intake and increase exercise.
>> An elitist who has never been broken by his or her circumstances does not
>> know that people who have become demoralized do not need analyses and
>> pontifications.  Rather the immobilized need a shot of morale.
>> """

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> My own experience on this topic (mostly with governments and with broken 
> businesses) is that each case is highly specialized...and rules aren't of
> much use. In general, self-esteem is essential to both individuals and 
> organizations to achieve productivity. P2P assumes self-esteem to some 
> extent...like any individualist philosophy. In reality, we need slow 
> careful processes to build and maintain self esteem. In much of Europe
> and Asia, strong cultural norms set these tones. In more diverse places, 
> cultural norms do not work as well. People need civil society organs to 
> help them survive the normal everyday crises that strike us all, but that
>  only the stonger ones survive and flourish through.
> 
> State socialism excludes the prospect of self-esteem. The self's identity
>  is melded into the state...or society...as with China under Mao. A 
> professor-friend of mind was recently in China and asked numerous people 
> what the greatest change has been in 20 years...almost all said the rise
> of individualism. This was ironic, my friend felt, because it was obvious
>  there was virtually no individualism by Western standards. But by
> Chinese standards, individualism has exploded. People literally have an
> individual identity. That is new there.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that individualism is strongest globally in the
>  US...and most prominent amongst the economically strong. It is also fair
> to say that in some ways the US is broken. To return self-esteem and
> capacity to the bottom, some socialization process (as happened with the
> New Deal and with Civil Rights) will become necessary to maintain social
> stability; therefore, it will happen. It may be that P2P systems could
> fulfull that role, but only if they organize as a true net of civil
> society entities rather than as fragmented little causes.
> 
> The trouble is that we are moving toward highly complex intervention 
> scenarios that require lengthy individualized treatments. It may be the 
> case that P2P thus becomes an enabling method to help the weaker persons 
> gain some strength through participation in non-economic non-threatening 
> systems that are not handled as government hand-outs...which I generally
> see as dependency-sponsoring...essentially like an addictive drug. There
> is nothing morally wrong with social programmes...what is morally wrong
> is social programmes that create addicts. Hence the TANF reforms in the
> US with strict time limits, etc. These often fail at the margins because 
> individual cases are too difficult to manage. I can imagine small P2P 
> social organizations helping people get situated and then building their 
> self-esteem and capacity...from the bottom. In essence, this is like 
> Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. as P2P entities.
> 
> The sorts of entities described in another list email on traits of a P2P 
> community need to rope together to create the sort of safety net referral
>  infrastructure to support the weaker persons of society who are getting 
> crushed by capitalism's melting and iceberg fragments. The trouble with 
> spontaneous organization is that it seems to defy the usual paths of 
> leadership-driven formation. Do we simply sit by and hope P2P happens and
>  evolves?

This is really insightful, especially about the demands that social change 
are placing on individuals to be more creative and adapting to fluid local 
situations. And yes, P2P can be demanding in that way. Although, again, 
Manuel de Landa's meshworks and hierarchies insight applies; for example, 
Alcoholics Anonymous twelve step programs get people to talk to each other 
peer to peer, but the process is formalized and so is hierarchical in that 
sense. And yes also, individuals can sometimes so stress the meshwork that 
it breaks locally (like a club or mailing list), whereas a more formal 
hierarchy would keep plodding along for someone with deep problems (like a 
nursing home).

And in general, I see the same pushback about homeschooling/unschooling or 
self-employment or having free unstructured time. Most people think they 
can't handle it and avoid it. And if they try it, most people flounder for a 
long time, until most people get the hang of making their own decisions 
again. But there is a huge fear of having to make decisions minute by 
minute. And, some personalities are happier with more structure than others. 
Something about that as far as the match of parent and child, but might 
apply to a match of community expectations and individual personality:
   http://www.motherstyles.com/
"Millions of people use the framework of Personality Type to understand and 
make use of their strengths in all aspects of their lives. Now MotherStyles 
shows you how to use this powerful self-knowledge in parenting —to be a 
happier, wiser and more effective mother. You'll learn good mothers come in 
many styles, no mother is perfect — and why that's a good thing. "

On individuals thriving in different situations as you mention:
   "The Science of Success: Orchid Children"
  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene
"Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take 
root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the 
orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given 
greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which 
asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, 
causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie 
humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad 
environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, 
drug-addicted, or in jail—but with the right environment and good parenting, 
they can grow up to be society’s most creative, successful, and happy people."

I was reading yesterday the suggestion that in times of rapid social change 
with failing or fluid social institutions the individual needs more 
stability in friends and family (or other strengths). But the USA is weak in 
those too, because of the emphasis on stuff over community. What if some of 
it is even intentional, from "divide and conquer"?

More from that first article:
   http://www.counterpunch.org/levine12042009.html
"""
The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and 
terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other 
dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by 
financial fears. There is potential legal debt if we speak out against a 
powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply on the 
job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no 
health insurance.
   The U.S. population is increasingly broken by the social isolation 
created by corporate-governmental policies. A 2006 American Sociological 
Review study (“Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion 
Networks over Two Decades”) reported that 25 percent of Americans did not 
have a single confidant in 2004 (10 percent of Americans lacked a single 
confidant in 1985). Sociologist Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone (2000) 
describes how social connectedness is disappearing in virtually every aspect 
of U.S. life. For example, there has been a significant decrease in 
face-to-face contact with neighbors and friends due to suburbanization, 
commuting, electronic entertainment, time and money pressures and other 
variables created by governmental-corporate policies. And union activities 
and other formal or informal ways that people give each other the support 
necessary to resist oppression have also decreased.
   We are also broken by a corporate-government partnership that has 
rendered most of us out of control when it comes to the basic necessities of 
life, including our food supply. And we, like many other people in the 
world, are broken by socializing institutions that alienate us from our 
basic humanity. A few examples: ...
"""

That links also with my previous mention that loneliness can be contagious, 
making all these trends worse. It's like a weak human immune system from 
nutritional deficiencies (like little vitamin A, or vitamin D, or iodine, or 
vitamin C, or whatever) then is more susceptible to diseases like influenza, 
or less able to produce the most adaptive response (so, it is too little or 
too much).

But, I should have added, happiness can be contagious, too: :-)
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/12/01/loneliness-may-be-contagious/
"""
Specifically, Christakis found that happiness is a little contagious within 
our small group of friends and family.
   http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97831171
That old study found that “when a person becomes happy, a friend living 
close by has a 25 percent higher chance of becoming happy themselves. A 
spouse experiences an 8 percent increased chance and for next-door 
neighbors, it’s 34 percent.” In other words, happiness can be a little 
contagious.
   Today, we discover the logical extension of this earlier research — if 
happiness can be contagious, it stands to reason that other moods may also 
be, like loneliness.
"""

Recessions can be good for most people's health somewhat as well: :-)
   "Recessions: Good for Our Health? The Great Depression was actually good 
for U.S. health, according to a new study."
   http://news.discovery.com/human/recession-health-economy.html

Maybe because people have time to rebuild social networks? Is the social 
infrastructure of social bridges any less valuable than the physical 
infrastructure of physical bridges? If you have to pick one, it seems like 
the social one is more important?

Anyway, a swirl of ideas. Leading to what? I don't know. :-)

But hopefully something more positive.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/