Learning about collectives

Thinking about what a given person in a given situation actually needs makes things more concrete. Sometimes I need a lot of input or feedback from other people, sometimes, maybe, I'm better off on my own. The idea that there are certain forms of social support that a person needs at different points in life makes sense. The classics we're all familiar with: sometimes it's a matter of mirroring, sometimes it's a matter of encouragement, sometimes it's a matter of caution and saying "no".

In adult life, it can be difficult to offload this sort of need onto other people without being a burden or annoyance. Nevertheless, when everyone has a stake in working together, there's less annoyance or burdening, and more enthusiasm about progress. It's possible to approach other people as a sort of a leech (what can I get from them) or as a sort of a salesman (what can they get from me) -- which is often a similar thing, actually.

A more paragogical question to ask is "what can we build together?" The fact is that, quite often, the answer will be "nothing" -- either because of "cultural barriers" (values aren't shared, language cannot bridge the gaps) or because of economic barriers (as much as two people might like to work together on something, their time may be taken up with other things). Other times, the desire to "work together" may be completely one-sided, reconstituting the "leech" phenomenon described above (with reference to the essay on Pop Music, this makes me think of "Stan" by Eminem).

"Adult" needs are often phrased in terms of knowledge, production, and pleasure. If I don't understand something well, I will look for someone who can explain it to me. If I'm having trouble making something, I'll look for people who can do some of the work. And of course pleasure is increased when it's shared (Tony Duvert, "Good Sex Illustrated").

Talking about adult needs for maintaining "identity" is somewhat less popular. Someone who needs continual encouragement (or discouragement) is seen as childish, for example. And yet identity, or something like it, is often what's at stake in the adult spheres of scholarship, work, and sex. People invest a lot of emotional energy in being able to "be" who they want to be. And yet identity can be continually subject to challenges. You want to be someone who can drive fast, then some asshole (who's driving faster) cuts you off in traffic.

At the same time, it's not entirely clear that "identity" is what we really need to make it through daily life or even to thrive there (Kathy Acker, "In Memoriam to Identity"). A blurry, fuzzy, "self" may be adaptive in some circumstances, and not in others. In particular, if we examine social arrangements at the level of collectives, "self" and "ego" fade into the background. This phenomenon is immortalized (ironically) in the words of Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants".

Becoming a "we" instead of just an "I" is another approach to establishing an identity, surely. Typically a "we" is made up of individuals, or, more accurately, fractions of individuals, who are themselves distributed across lots of other sorts of engagements. The "needs" of collectives are different from the needs of individual humans, who basically comprise the cells or organelles of the larger collective.

Without humans involved in the larger organism, it dies. This gives individuals some degree of power, since they can "vote with their feet". And, incidentally, from the point of view of a body, it is useful to be aware of the "rebellions" of various organs, compare the story of "The Rebellion Against the Stomach".

What if anything does all of this have to do with learning? Let's review where we've gotten to. First, whether we take a hard line on "identity" or not, we should admit that we function in various collectives, and that we are ourselves "collectivities" of a sort. Knowledge, production, and pleasure are themselves the actions or domains of collectives. Should this "fact" disempower or empower individuals?

We've already seen a limited form of power in voting with the feet, but what about a much-enhanced sort of power that comes from being able to form collectives that serve one's particular ends or ambitions? Do we know, or can we learn, how to do that? The challenge of learning about how collectives form, how they relate to individuals, and how individual satisfaction results (or doesn't) remains before us - but perhaps some of the background ideas have become more clear.