Mathematicians and scientists tend to look for underlying root cause as opposed to dealing with each observation as an end to itself. By analogy, if humanity is faced with many societal ills, it is natural to look for the one underlying cause of these ills even though the ills may look like separate regimes of thought on their own. Once the underlying common cause is understood and studied, it is more likely that humanity will be able to deal with the problem. This procedure would be no different than the procedure followed when scientists investigate the underlying causes of disease and attack those underlying causes rather than just treat each symptom as if it is a stand alone phenomenon.
Of course, once the scientific method leaves the realm of objective measurement and ventures into societal applications, the method becomes a bit more subjective. When applying these scientific principles to society, human feelings and emotions come into play. This is not so different a situation however than the situation when scientists began investigating space or when other scientists began investigating the human body. There was a great deal of resistance to these investigations from people whose feelings, emotions and the need to protect ones belief system got in the way. One should expect the same kinds of resistance to occur when science and reason are used to explore underlying causes for social ills.
One might ask, “Why apply scientific reasoning to the social fabric?” The answer is that the social fabric can rip if it is not understood. The only way to understand it is to be aware of the underlying driving forces at work. Human technology is approaching a point such that all forms of advanced technology will be made easily available to all through the internet. This is an egalitarianism of technology; available to all equally. On the surface this seems like a good thing. But what happens when deadly technology is available to those who hate their lives, who despise humanity and who by any objective standard are insane? What happens when weapons of mass destruction are available to those who believe their group identity is the defining factor in their lives? And when they view the killing off of those who have a different group identity as a battle cry? The world and all its good decent innocent creatures with all their potential could be destroyed because of the weakest and most defective amongst us. We must understand the forces which are leading to this disastrous end. If ever there was a need to apply the power of thought to a problem, this is it.
What follows is a short list of social philosophies that have one underlying fundamental cause and are responsible for much of what ails and has ailed human society throughout its history. Not everyone will agree on all the ills of humanity. In fact there are those might say the following list is of strengths and not weaknesses. I would disagree with these people. But agreement or disagreement on the particulars is not important. The important issue is to define an underlying cause – to show that these systems of thought are not separate but are emanating from the same underlying cause. So here is a partial list of systems of thought that many would agree are societal ills yet most people will pick and choose through the list and find some things they like and some they do not. This is okay and fits into the philosophy of diversified groupism which I’ll discuss soon. The following list may be thought of as a list of examples of groupism, or as some people put it in a somewhat less meaningful terminology; 'group think' examples.
1. Communism
2. Fascism
3. Bigotry
4. Racism
5. Religious Fundamentalism
6. Organized Religion
7. Slavery
8. Ethnic identity
9. Nationalism
10. Genocide
11. Bureaucracy
12. Dictatorship
13. Tribes
14. Terrorism
15. War
Let’s start with the top of the list and go briefly though each of the terms. Obviously an analysis of each of these terms could fill many books and has. But the purpose here is not to show that we can dissect each of these terms into minute shades of detail but rather that we can find an underlying theme that is the real essence underneath these varied terms. One can think of the above list as a list of sources of group conflict. It is, but there is a deeper underlying philosophy and for most humans; a need, that connects these notions together. The purpose here is to find the underlying generality, not to dissect into infinitesimal detail which would just have the effect of confusing the point and blurring the issues.
First, in order to have a platform to use as a philosophical structure, let’s define groupism and diversifism.
Groupism is the manifestation of the need for a group identity which is stronger in some people and cultures than in others. The manifestation can take many forms. Examples of these forms will be given in relation to the above list.
Undiversified groupism is the over-riding need for a group identity which eliminates to a large extent the possibility for alternative group identities or associations.
Diversified groupism or diversifism is the diversification of group identity into many group identities in infinitely expanding dimensions.
Communism and Fascism are usually thought to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum; communism being thought of as far left in the political spectrum and fascism as far right. Put simply, communism is groupism based on the state. The state or a collection of states is the group. The identity of the individual is subverted to the identity of the state. Subgroups and individuals are suppressed in order to facilitate a unified state identity.
Fascism is groupism based on the nation. There isn’t too much of a difference between the terms ‘state’ and ‘nation’. Perhaps the main difference is that communism tends to suppress individuality in favor of a populace dedicated to the state whereas fascism tends to suppress individuality but with a particular vengeance toward anyone outside of a favored ‘national’ group identity. Communism would attempt to suppress sub-group identities in favor of a state identity, fascism would attempt to eliminate the sub-groups. Ultimately both have racist elements and see all competing groups as a threat. The particulars of either of these systems would have more to do with the dictator in charge than any deep underlying philosophy. Both political philosophies are based on groupism and the enhancing of groupist tendencies.
Bigotry is a mix of hatred, isolation and discrimination directed toward a minority group. Without group identities, bigotry could not exist. Racism is a bit more particular than bigotry. The group usually has to be defined by race or religion. Both bigotry and racism are solidly rooted in groupism.
Religious fundamentalism or religious fanaticism are terms applied to people who adhere rigorously to the fundamentals of their religions and will either kill outsiders to those religious beliefs as a result or they will support those who do kill. They will kill in the name of their God which makes the killing acceptable. Their God and their particular beliefs surrounding that God define the insider group and everyone else is an outsider. Without strong insider group identity there could be no religious fundamentalism. This is basically groupism defined around a deity.
The way most people look at religious fundamentalism is to say it is just taking religion in the wrong way. The term hijacking religion has been used. Is this the case or are these people just taking the belief system that underlies their group identity literally and following consequences?
First, to show that organized religion (non-fundamentalist) is based more on the need for group identity in the first place than on belief, consider the following observation. All religions can’t be right. They have different beliefs; that is why they are different religions. Some people would counter by saying different religions just represent different paths to the same place. Since each of the religions actually believe in something and it has particulars that define it, the different path counter argument is an awkward attempt at twisted gibberish. In fact either all are wrong or at most one is right. Yet, most people who are born into a given religion stay in that religion.
We could conclude that each of these people who belong to a certain religion have given long thought to the logic of their religion and other religions and have chosen to stay in their religion of birth. But since there is not a lot of movement between religions, it must be that people aren’t thinking about it at all. The tendency is to just stay where you are and believe that you happen to be right. You happen to be lucky enough to have been born into the right religion; no matter what that religion happens to be.
Right.
They tend to stay in the religion they are born into because it is their group identity.
Fundamentalists have an extremely strong need for group identity. Religion provides the perfect platform for satisfying the need of extreme undiversified group identity. God can be used as an excuse and fear of God is the glue that holds the group together; a very potent glue. Religions are not being hijacked; they are just being taken to the logical conclusion of extreme groupism.
Notice, nowhere in this discussion have I brought up the possible existence or non-existence of any particular God or any kind of underlying intelligence to the universe. That doesn’t come into the discussion. The underlying basis of organized religion and of religious fundamentalism is the need for a group identity – groupism.
One has to have faith in order for all this to work. That is, if you are born into a certain religion, you have faith that you are in the right religion. Faith is the act of believing what you have been told by other people without questioning it. It doesn’t sound like a real positive attribute. Yet people say they have faith like it is a good thing. Politicians proudly proclaim their faith. Can you imagine if they proudly proclaimed that they will believe whatever a member of a particular group tells them without proof? Try to get elected on that.
Slavery. Well, this is a simple one. There is something that defines the group that is being enslaved as different from the group that is doing the enslaving. And to make slavery work, the group identities have to be strong. Groupism at work. Slavery in the United States could not have taken place without strong undiversified groupism at work. Slavery represents the opposite of stated American ideals which are based on freedom. It represents the worst of American history. It does not take a lot of thought to understand that slavery and freedom are opposites. Yet slavery took place in a nation that states its dedication to freedom. When groupism is at work, the most twisted reasoning can result.
Ethnic identity. This is also pretty straightforward. If you identify strongly with your ethnic background, you have a strong group identity.
Nationalism is a group identity based on a nation. Fascism is nationalism in the extreme.
Like slavery, there could be no genocide without strong group identity. The killing off of another group of people could not take place if there was not a strong delineation to the groups and a strong undiversified form of groupism driving it.
Bureaucracy seems to beget a need for group identity. There is always an amount of group-like conformity needed in bureaucratic systems. It usually forms in large organizations be they government or large private corporations. Bureaucrats are like little machines that follow orders and fall in line. They are probably a necessary part of large organizations. Underlying their functionality though is a layer of rule based conformity and identity with the larger machine that controls it all. The larger government or corporate machine manifests group identity for bureaucrats. They parlay their conformity with the machine into security for themselves. They do this sometimes, not all the time, at the expense of the populace they supposedly serve. They often become an inefficient cog in the machine supported by structures that move slowly or cannot be moved at all.
Bureaucrats tend to stand in the way of change because it interferes with the security and self-importance their repetitive functions give them. Communist and fascist dictatorships could not exist without them. Bureaucrats are the mindless troops of whoever is in charge at the moment and their group identity is with the current machine. Conformity to rules is their bible. Perhaps the view should be that bureaucracy is needed as a tool for groupism more than actually being groupism.
Dictatorships could not survive if there were not some form of group identity supporting them. In many countries this form of group identity is one fueled by fear. Undiversified groupism must underlie dictatorship in some way as discussed above under communism, fascism, bureaucracy, etc.
Tribe. Needless to say, if you see yourself as part of a tribe, you have a group identity with that tribe. You will treat members of your tribe differently than you will treat non-members. This is discrimination on a tribal level; tribal groupism. In Africa and other parts of the world, tribal groupism is hard at work creating misery and waging genocidal wars against a defenseless populace.
The list could go on and on. But rather than beat this very dead horse, let us now think about a solution to the problem. The problem is groupism. But most people need some form of group identity and this is not always a bad thing. It would be probably be difficult for a team of people to build an aircraft if they did not have some form of team or group identity. Great human cities would never have been built without teams working together for common purpose. So some forms of groupism are positive. And some of the examples given in the list of groupist philosophies have positive aspects. For example, ethnic identity can be a positive force for many people providing them comfort and security and a feeling of shared experience. Religion can supply people with a feeling that death is not final and there is hope for the good to win in the end and for all horrors to finally be set right.
There are two general forms of groupism; undiversified groupism and diversified groupism. Undiversified groupism is the enemy and diversified groupism is the solution. The closer one gets to undiversified groupism the closer one gets to what would be recognized by most as extremism. When the need for a groupist identity is so strong and all encompassing that it excludes or greatly diminishes all other group identities; that is undiversified groupism. One overpowering group identity is dangerous because it can lead to the de-humanizing of other perceived groups. One can see this force at work throughout the world and on all sides of every conflict. I do not want to give political examples because that will take us off target and into individual political conflicts. It is better to come away with the understanding that undiversified groupism is a great danger and must be dealt with or it has the potential to lead to the end of the human race.
Terrorism is groupism in the extreme. Having said that I do not want to tread into the various political forays going on around the world, it is difficult to write a piece on groupism without mentioning terrorism. The root cause of terrorism is groupism. I state this without going into an analysis of the claims, criticisms and counter criticisms on all sides of this issue. It is wrong to kill or maim innocent people for whatever reason. Even if the reason is they are in a different group.
The only way the killing of innocents can take place is if undiversified groupism is hard at work. Strong group identities that overpower all other thought are the only thing that will allow one group to kill another’s innocents. Widespread and accepted diversified groupism is the only thing that can cure the problem. So wouldn't it be a good idea to think about this?
9/11 could not have taken place without groupism driving it. Murder of the innocents is necessarily murder of the innocents of a perceived opposing group.
After 9/11 there was a backlash toward Muslims by some westerners. This is also a form of groupism. Grouping Muslims together under one umbrella of terrorism is as wrong as it is simplistic. Westerners who view all Muslims as the enemy or being somehow fundamentally flawed are as wrong as the terrorists and in the same way. It is groupism at work in both cases.
War implies strong undiversified groupism at work. Imagine how strange it is that innumerable humans throughout history have come to the conclusion that it is okay to kill innocent children as long as those children belong to a different group. I am not saying that war is never valid under any circumstances but diversifism implies that war should be avoided at all costs. And war at its most basic level requires groupism. Consider how odd it is that when two countries are in conflict, most - not all - but most of the people who have ethnic identity with a particular country will see that country as correct and righteous in the conflict. Are they thinking? Or is this another example of groupism?
There tends to be more of a break along these lines in countries like the United States in which diversifism has worked to diversify group identity. American cities like to refer to themselves as a melting pot which is really just a manifestation of diversifism. Countries which have more groupist tendencies will see America as weak because of its diversity of opinion. But the opposite is true. Countries with more diversifism have always done better as economic and intellectual powers than countries that have operated under the hard edged heel of groupism.
Conflicts throughout the world are based on group identities more than philosophies or ideologies: Israelis and Palestinians, Christians and Moslems, Sunni and Shia, the Darfur conflict, etc. If these groups of people woke up one morning and magically all their group identities were reversed nothing would have changed. There would still be a conflict; only people would have changed views to the other side. It isn't ideology; it is groupism.
It must be recognized that most people need their group identities. But if there are many group identities and not one overwhelming identity, risk is diversified away. This is diversified groupism or diversifism. A secular egalitarian society exhibits diversifism. No one group can take over and control society. Some would say this is just democracy. Democracy is one way to implement diversifism and probably a necessary way to implement diversifism. True democracy is a diversification of freely expressed ideas and that is the correct direction. This article is not about implementation though; it is about bringing the human gaze onto the correct target before it is too late. Let it suffice to say that it is in the interests of the people of the world to install political systems that lead to diversifism and when political or societal decisions are to be made, leaders should ask themselves if this decision will lead to increased diversifism or not.
Here is an example of good and bad decision making taking the philosophy of diversifism into account: when people talk about America being too secular and want religion to become more an integral part of government, this flies in the face of diversifism. They are trying to strengthen the forces of groupism and they should be stopped because strengthening undiversified groupism in a democracy is the same as setting up forces that will work to undermine freedom. Freedom is freedom of the individual to choose and to control their own life. Creating group structures on the level of government will undermine that freedom.
Diversifism is diversity of group identity in every direction. Conformity, sameness, resentment and hate are the enemies hiding under undiversified groupism and must decay into oblivion. The need for a group identity is a terrible and fundamental weakness in humanity. It is a weakness that can lead to the end of humanity. But that very weakness can be molded into diversifism which is a strength. Diversity of ideas, diversity of people, and diversity of individuality must be the future or there will be no future.