Social Atomization and Social Capital
What do you guys think about the loss of social capital through atomization of society via tech? Trying to figure out the ways that atomization is being sold to the masses as a perk, like working from home, but where it actually makes it easier to control them Here's a section of the piece I'm working on. ##Atomization and Social Capital## The relationshipbetween social atomization and social capital is something thathasn’t been so firmly established, if at all. Surely, at firstglance they seem to be similar, almost exactly the same but they’renot. Atomization, in a sociological sense, is the breaking down ofsociety into smaller pieces; in scientific terms to atomize somethingis to spray it, like gasoline into the cylinder of a car. Diffusionis a synonym to both uses. Social capital,though, is a much slippery term. I think it is most succinctlydefined as: the networks of relationships among people who live andwork in a particular society, enabling that society to functioneffectively. We have entered aburgeoning era in western society where there is less and less socialcapital needed between people for the society to continue tofunction. For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer todeliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDAwhich sets qualifications for producers to meet so that the food inthe grocery store doesn’t harm anybody. There are numerous agenciesand technologies that have the sole purpose of existing in order tolessen the amount of trust that we need in each other. I don’tthink this is a bad evolution in society, to the contrary, I thinkit’s a net benefit for all involved. Therefore, thedeclining amount of social capital needed in our society for it tofunction is good for our economic production and physical well-being(at least at face value, but that’s a topic for another time.) Onthe other hand, what this allows for is further societal atomizationwithout any harmful effects to economic production and/or physicalwell-being. The danger instead is shifted to our personal lives.Belonging to a community that has no other interest other thangetting together with people that have similar ideologies, the amountof people growing a family, public recreation, and many otherpro-social activities are all declining. The most recentdevelopment is in the workplace. Many workers have been operatingremotely since the onset of the pandemic and the organizations theywork for have been realizing that productivity has not beendramatically affected. Jack Dorsey recently announced that mostTwitter employees would not be required to come into the office evenafter the pandemic slows, and in general the ability to work fromhome is being sold to us as a perk. But in the long run “Workingfrom Home Post-Coronavirus Will Give Bosses Greater Control ofWorkers’ Lives” as mentioned by Luke Savage in his article of thesame name as well as essentially abolish casual co-workingsocialization and further diminish social capital in the work place. Frankly, we don’tneed these social aspects in life to have our basic necessities metbut it’s well known that most are beneficial, sometimes critical,for psychological growth and well-being.
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 06:35:40 +0200 (CEST) recondite@tuta.io wrote:
For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer to deliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDA
if you believe that sort of bullshit I have a nice shinny bridge to sell you.
I don’t think this is a bad evolution in society, to the contrary, I think it’s a net benefit for all involved.
then you don't know what you're talking about.
Therefore, the declining amount of social capital needed in our society for it to function is good for our economic production
no, it's only good for the ruling class. “Working from Home Post-Coronavirus Will Give Bosses Greater Control of Workers’ Lives” that's right and that's what the Fascist Flu Farce is all about. last but not least, jargon like 'atomization' and 'social capital' is not useful. I suggest you frame it in the actual terms of political control and government crime.
For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer to deliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDA
All countries FDA, Depts of Agriculture, Commerce, Militaries, and UN/WHO, etc have some various controversy and downstream effects regarding... pesti/herbi/fungi/bio/*-cides, nuke test background radiation, fertilizer, food irradiation, etc. People say "you are what you eat", most ignore it. Half of lawyers claim safe, other half claim death. Some supply chains playing with RFID, blockchain. Some brands and stores shilling loyalty rewards metoo coins. Some people growing their own foods. Many smoking it.
Jun 7, 2020, 16:22 by punks@tfwno.gf:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 06:35:40 +0200 (CEST) recondite@tuta.io wrote:
For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer to deliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDA
if you believe that sort of bullshit I have a nice shinny bridge to sell you.
I don’t think this is a bad evolution in society, to the contrary, I think it’s a net benefit for all involved.
then you don't know what you're talking about.
Therefore, the declining amount of social capital needed in our society for it to function is good for our economic production
no, it's only good for the ruling class.
“Working from Home Post-Coronavirus Will Give Bosses Greater Control of Workers’ Lives”
that's right and that's what the Fascist Flu Farce is all about.
last but not least, jargon like 'atomization' and 'social capital' is not useful. I suggest you frame it in the actual terms of political control and government crime.
I know people bitch about your critique but I was hoping to get your opinion, although I don't get the bridge reference, you'll have to baby step me to the shiny bridge theorem. I don't know much about the FDA other than their "official goals" which is a shame, I'll be rewriting that. Adding a subheading about the political control and government crime aspect is now on my list but it's a sociology piece overall and my personal area of focus is on the psychological, that's why I don't think it should be framed in a complete political/governmental focus. The jargon I can defend as well. I think we should all practice being as specific as possible in the language we use. Now, I define how I'm using the terms before I get into the substance of the article, which almost declassify the jargon for my readers/listeners. If we made it common practice in conversation and discourse to step back and make sure the terms we're using have the same meaning then everyone could avoid a whole shitload of frustration. I watch it play out all the time socially, I can't tell you how many times I've stopped a group conversation where two friends were using the same words in different contexts and fighting over a concept built off of the two separate definitions. Neither noticed and once they were on the same page the controversy completely ends 9/10 times. My neo-lib-leisure-class ex was the 1/10 10/10 times so maybe some are lost b/c she was moderate on the neo-lib-leisure-class scale; that would be the group to de-jargonize for and get as foundational and governmental/political with since that's the language they speak but not my cup of tea.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 06:04:35 +0200 (CEST) recondite@tuta.io wrote:
Jun 7, 2020, 16:22 by punks@tfwno.gf:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 06:35:40 +0200 (CEST) recondite@tuta.io wrote:
For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer to deliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDA
I don't know much about the FDA other than their "official goals" which is a shame, I'll be rewriting that.
Well, first question is, why would farmers want to poison their customers? Even from an amoral, purely commercial point of view, it would be a bad and counterproductive practice. Then, assuming a farmer does poison somebody, the case should be handled by ordinary courts. There's no need for a special bureaucracy setting 'rules' like "poisoning people is bad" because those 'rules' are already part of virtually any half-decent legal/moral system. So you have to ask, what does the so called FDA and other 'regulatory' groups actually do? What they mostly do is 'regulate' the market in order to give an advantage to big or established businesses and shield them from competition. For instance, do a search for "goldman sachs revolving door" and you'll see that the 'financial regulators' are 'ex' bankers. So the 'ex' bankers are 'regulating' the bankers. You should do a search for "regulatory capture" too. just a sample : https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/12/trump-and-goldmans-revolving-door/ Also, if businesses are not to be trusted, what about regulators themselves? How is it possible for regulators to even theoretically achieve a level of trust that businesses don't deserve?
The jargon I can defend as well. I think we should all practice being as specific as possible in the language we use.
agreed.
Now, I define how I'm using the terms before I get into the substance of the article, which almost declassify the jargon for my readers/listeners.
fair enough. I suppose the terms you chose are better suited for your intended audience. I just re-read the article. So, despite granting as you do that a 'regulated' and technocratic economic system is more 'efficient', you do see a (big) problem with it. Nice =)
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 06:35:40AM +0200, recondite@tuta.io wrote:
What do you guys think about the loss of social capital through atomization of society via tech?
Trying to figure out the ways that atomization is being sold to the masses as a perk, like working from home, but where it actually makes it easier to control them
Here's a section of the piece I'm working on.
##Atomization and Social Capital##
The relationshipbetween social atomization and social capital is something thathasn’t been so firmly established, if at all. Surely, at firstglance they seem to be similar, almost exactly the same but they’renot. Atomization, in a sociological sense, is the breaking down ofsociety into smaller pieces; in scientific terms to atomize somethingis to spray it, like gasoline into the cylinder of a car. Diffusionis a synonym to both uses.
Social capital,though, is a much slippery term. I think it is most succinctlydefined as: the networks of relationships among people who live andwork in a particular society, enabling that society to functioneffectively.
We have entered aburgeoning era in western society where there is less and less socialcapital needed between people for the society to continue tofunction. For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer todeliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDAwhich sets qualifications for producers to meet so that the food inthe grocery store doesn’t harm anybody. There are numerous agenciesand technologies that have the sole purpose of existing in order tolessen the amount of trust that we need in each other. I don’tthink this is a bad evolution in society, to the contrary, I thinkit’s a net benefit for all involved.
Therefore, thedeclining amount of social capital needed in our society for it tofunction is good for our economic production and physical well-being(at least at face value, but that’s a topic for another time.) Onthe other hand, what this allows for is further societal atomizationwithout any harmful effects to economic production and/or physicalwell-being. The danger instead is shifted to our personal lives.Belonging to a community that has no other interest other thangetting together with people that have similar ideologies, the amountof people growing a family, public recreation, and many otherpro-social activities are all declining.
The most recentdevelopment is in the workplace. Many workers have been operatingremotely since the onset of the pandemic and the organizations theywork for have been realizing that productivity has not beendramatically affected. Jack Dorsey recently announced that mostTwitter employees would not be required to come into the office evenafter the pandemic slows, and in general the ability to work fromhome is being sold to us as a perk. But in the long run “Workingfrom Home Post-Coronavirus Will Give Bosses Greater Control ofWorkers’ Lives” as mentioned by Luke Savage in his article of thesame name as well as essentially abolish casual co-workingsocialization and further diminish social capital in the work place.
Frankly, we don’tneed these social aspects in life to have our basic necessities metbut it’s well known that most are beneficial, sometimes critical,for psychological growth and well-being.
In our 'modern' world, folks have been so under the pump, so ground (voluntarily) on the treadmill of debt interest payments for shiny things, that a few months is barely the beginning of 'unwinding', a brief chance to begin to unwind and reassess life. The more this happens, the more we get off the treadmill, the more we have the opportunity to breathe, to slow down, and to reassess "what even matters?" Hopefully more folks take the opportunity to do so, and contemplate on what actually matters ... to them.
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
recondite＠tuta.io -
Zenaan Harkness