Book │ "Fa Gao Zhe" #7 Conflict

Personal reading experience records, there are many personal thoughts.

/////////

Can society prevent conflict?

The composition of society and the establishment of norms have been mentioned earlier, but has there been success in reducing conflict by integrating these members?

1) Society cannot prevent conflict because society is built on conflict

Society is organized around competition for work, money, freedom, and even the complementarity of individuals. Even social benefits are obtained through constant debate and struggle. Defending these rights through collective strength enables individuals to realize themselves.

Custer - No social benefits without struggle or debate "Rebuilding Society"

 "This is an unavoidable lesson from social history that individuals must be 'de-individualized' so that they become completely independent individuals. Individuals are part of a group, wealth and their full power, the right to work, the right to collective agreement, such as the protection of labor and social welfare rights and the "rights owner". ﹝…﹞The pension is paid in an individual way, and he is free to use it in his personal capacity. But it is his own right, from the result that it belongs to a labor group, and he also shares the cost over the years to meet the common rules laid down by his retirement system. When workers join a collective protection system, their individuality is protected. This is why I say that there is great ambiguity in the public policy that advocates individual values. This ambiguity means that these public policies have a good side because the intention of making the people we help accountable is positive, but never because it is right for a person to simply accept help. The requirement to popularize this (unconditionally helping others) policy has omissions and shadows. What he ignores is the need to consider the conditions (or supports) for individuals to be responsible, self-propelled, and self-mobilized. Without this support, an individual cannot stand on his own, which may bring about a crisis of social death. "

Q: How to understand "de-individualization" through the example of retirement benefits?

"The pension is paid on an individual basis, and he is free to use it in his personal capacity. But it is his own right, from the result that it belongs to a working group, and he also apportions it over the years to meet the common rules set by his retirement system."

Q: Is it possible to present an argument against his to support the opposite argument? That is, social protection measures are all violations of the fundamental rights and values of individual freedom.

This question is too difficult... I can't finish it in a few simple sentences...

uh... skip. 🙂

In addition, because I didn't want to go too deep, on the one hand, it is a bit difficult to find an argument that "social protection measures do not infringe on the basic rights and values of individual freedoms", on the other hand, I originally believed that there was no infringement.

Maybe.

-

my thoughts

As I entered this chapter, I kept wondering why this book asks the question "Can society prevent conflict?"

It is understandable why the previous questions, "Why enter society?" and "Does society control its members?". It should be said that it is probably understandable why this book will set these topics, such as politics and society. Because most people start to get a little tired of the world when they are teenagers, and they start to have all kinds of questions about the world, why the world is like this and so on. So when it comes to "society", the question "why enter society?" will definitely come up. "Does society control its members?" After explaining the previous question, I found that society has set all kinds of rules, but society also emphasizes freedom and peace. Do we really have freedom, or are we controlled?

Anyway, I can understand why the first two questions are being asked. But why ask the question "Can society prevent conflict?"...?

Is it because the world is full of conflict? Or is it because there are various rules as mentioned above, but these rules do not prevent conflicts, so what are these rules for?

Well.. I don't know, it should be like this?

This chapter is quite easy to understand at the beginning, because to formulate a rule and law, it all needs to be coordinated. Usually, this coordination is that people with different opinions find a middle point for the same matter to coordinate. It takes a lot of communication to find this middle point, and there will be friction in the process, not to mention people with different opinions.

That's why it was mentioned at the beginning that "society is built on conflict". Of course, this point can be extended a lot, such as peace is through war and so on. Anyway, it's understandable here. But then Custer I'm a bit...incomprehensible.

"But it's his own right but it's his own right" is mainly from this sentence.... The word "but" should be used in the opposite situation to the previous argument, right? I look at his back as if...not contrary to the previous argument? Or am I understanding wrong? And suddenly there is a "fuzziness" mentioned later, what is this fuzziness..? Although there seems to be an explanation behind it.. but I can't understand it a bit....

According to the order of the book, Custer's side should be somewhat related to the above content, but how can I... can't see the connection...?

I can understand that "society is built on conflict", but I can't understand what Custer is saying.. what does it have to do with it?

"The requirement to popularize this (unconditionally helping others) policy has omissions and veiled aspects. What he ignores is the need to think about the conditions (or supports) for individuals to be responsible, self-propelled, and self-mobilized. If an individual does not have this The point of support is that it cannot stand on its own, and it may bring about a crisis of social death.”

This paragraph is also understandable. Generally speaking, the policy of "retirement" is a bit like no matter what the situation of the person is, regardless of whether he has a skill after retirement, he can use that skill to continue to survive in this society. It's a bit "OK, that's it. , I'll give you everything that should be given to you, goodbye." Patting the buttocks and leaving.

I understand it this way.

But what does this have to do with "society built on conflict"...?

Or is this an extended topic?

kindness…

2) Society should take responsibility for conflicts between individuals

The role of society is to create institutions (eg, justice, social welfare) that "specialize" human interaction to some extent. Society can show a cold and emotional side, such as when a judge must rule on child custody. But "society" has a duty to take care of all people through the system without the preconditions of friendship or kinship.

Rüegel - Are public service institutions a guarantor against conflict and indifference?
"History and Truth"

 “It should never be overlooked that relationships are the prey of passion, which may be the most violent of all emotions, but the most easily concealed and the most disloyal. Passion has a magic power that binds the individual and 'society' ' creates an opposition and cuts through his abstraction or anonymity. In the face of impersonal "justice" and hypocritical "charity", true kindness is often mocked by both. The "ultimate" meaning of public service institutions is through them to serve the purpose of serving people; it is futile if no one benefits or grows from them. But, more precisely, the meaning of "ultimate" has been obscured; no one can measure the individual benefits of the system. Kindness is not necessarily as it appears, it can also be hidden in certain jobs or in the small and abstract services provided by the social security system; it is often the masked meaning of social life. That's why it's "surprising". Because we don't know when we'll touch people. We think we give the most immediate love in these "short-term" relationships, but our charity is usually just a show; if we think we can keep people out of our "long-term" relationships like work, politics, etc., this may just be Our own hallucinations. "

Q: Why do institutions carry hidden meanings in social life?

"Public services are 'ultimately' meant to serve people through them; they are futile if no one benefits or grows from them. "

Q: Why is "hidden" kindness more legitimate than hypocritical kindness?

Kindness, as mentioned above, is giving the most direct love, and charity is usually just a show.

-

my thoughts

Society needs to provide a place where people can feel safe, free, and rights guaranteed, but as mentioned above, society has a cold and emotional side, and Lugel is explaining this later.

It is first mentioned that human emotions are strong and attracted to each other, which also means conflict. The ultimate purpose of public service agencies, although the purpose mentioned above is "covered up", but also explained a little later "it can also be hidden in certain jobs or the small and abstract services provided by the social security system. among".

It may be some small things we do in our daily work or life, such as saying thank you to the waiter, holding the door for the next person, keeping the environment clean and so on. When these little things accumulate, when many people do it, it becomes a positive cycle in the whole society. Everyone has been helped and they are helping others. That's what I mean by "kindness". This kind of kindness is also as mentioned in the book. It does not advertise what kind of good deeds he has done and how much money he has donated to charity. Of course, whether charity is so hypocritical or not, I think it may be a bit controversial. There is a saying that To "educate" people to do good deeds. In short, there are two sides to everything, including charity.

However, the purpose of the "public service agency" is not for a single person or for immediate benevolence. The object of its service is the society as a whole, so it has the "cold and lack of emotion" mentioned above.

3) Social mediation to quell conflict

Society is contradictory, it satisfies the individual needs, but also controls the individual. Society requires people to abide by norms, and it also produces abnormal behaviors relative to defining norms. So the more society takes care of the individual, the easier it is for the individual to be seen as abnormal.

Brocade - Does the exclusion tend to go invisible?
"Supervisors and Punishment"

 "Treat "lepers" as "plagues" […]: mental hospitals, reformatories, juvenile correctional institutions, monitored educational institutions, plus some hospitals, and in general, all institutions that exercise control over individuals Both operate in a dual mode: on the one hand binary division (crazy/not crazy; dangerous/non-aggressive; normal/abnormal); Where should he be? What characteristics does he have? How to identify him? How to supervise him in an individualized way, etc.). On the one hand, we treat lepers as plague patients, and apply individualized disciplinary methods to those who are rejected; And activate a dual mechanism of exclusion for her. "

Q: The author thinks that the way of exclusion in modern society has a paradoxical form: not to exclude people from society, but to imprison them within society. What do all these individuals placed in mental movements, prisons, and correctional institutions have in common?

Binary drawing points and discriminative assignments.

Q: Why is it surprising to compare hospitals, or even schools, with these types of institutions?

It may be because the functions of hospitals and schools and the monitored institutions are different, but the methods used are the same. Hospitals and schools should make people feel safe, equal, free, etc. However, for effective control and management, it is necessary to set up norms, and the establishment of norms will produce "abnormal people", which is the same as a monitored institution such as a prison. So it's a little surprising to make comparisons with such institutions.

Q: How is the conflict covered up?

I don't quite understand this issue, and the book doesn't explain it too much. Are you talking about exceptions caused by specifications?

-

my thoughts

It's interesting to put forward an idea here, "the more you take care of the individual, the easier it is for the individual to be turned into an anomaly". Because of norms, "normal" and "abnormal" are distinguished, so the more norms, the more abnormal the abnormal..?

Well... I don't know what I'm talking about...

All in all, it's an interesting point of view, looking at the relationship between "norm" and "normal or not" from this point of view.

Summary "Can Society Stop Conflict?"

The first point, "Society cannot prevent conflict, because society is built on conflict," literally means immediately knowing what is being said. The second point is that "society should take responsibility for conflicts between individuals." Society needs to establish systems to reduce conflicts, but these norms sometimes make people feel too cold. The reason why the system is cold is that it needs to be fair, but in fact society is full of various "kindness", that is, warm places, such as mutual help, relationships between people, etc. Finally, "Society settles conflicts through adjustment", which mainly focuses on conflicts arising from norms.

Now I understand that conflicts will definitely exist, and I know that society manages conflicts through norms. The problem now is the third point mentioned, because norms create more abnormality, and then set more norms, and generate more abnormality... Infinite loop, no one seems to end..?

Perhaps the "goal" of human beings is to use norms to surround all abnormality?

Well..seems like a completely different topic...