I also wonder how we measure “connectedness” and “disconnectedness,” since all members of our society are just that: present within the Society.
Good question. When I first became involved in discussing PNM and made contact with Dr. Barnett, I suggested that the degree of connectivity was something that could in fact be quantified by a good economist – though the object of discussion was nation-states. People would be more subjective and harder to evaluate.
They may be involved in different tasks, different goals with different motivations, but I’m of the same mind with Plato when he asserts that any system of society is a reflection of all the actual members of a society. I.e., we are already connected within the society, even if we don’t always notice the connections or recognize the type of connections that are present. These questions seem paramount, if we are to decide what, exactly, will be taught to the children of our society: what values, what merits, what future.”
I think here the concept of marginality would be helpful. The disconnected are still part of society, not complete aliens, so the disconnectivity is indeed relative. But they are beyond the equilibrium point where you might find the merely asocial, the misanthropic or the dissenter. The underclass are at the point where a majority of their behavior is in conflict with major societal Rule-sets and at times, self-preservation.
Comments as always, are most welcome.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dan tdaxp:
August 31st, 2005 at 12:53 pm
On the other hand, if I get critiques of this quality by being vague, perhaps I should start being intentionally ambiguous.
Lao Tzu already tried that. It worked great 😉
-Dan tdaxp
mark:
August 31st, 2005 at 6:52 pm
You’re going to start me posting geopolitical analysis in Koans Dan :o)