 |
| Pitirim Sorokin |
On the question of violence and evil in society
there are three fundamental theories:
- Every human being is
a battlefield between good and evil and carries with him strong tendencies
towards evil and violence. It is necessary to educate him in moral values,
to teach him to control his impulses.
- Man is good by
nature, society makes him bad. Education must try to keep us as much as
possible in our original natural state, the good savage. This is the
theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
- Man is good by
nature, everything bad is a consequence of a poorly focused education. The solution is education in
the gender ideology, which is dominant today.
What does science say (in this case,
Sociology)?
One of the most important sociologists of the
20th century, the Russian-American Pitirim Sorokin, wrote the following in his
book Society,
Culture and Personality (Chapter VI, Factors of Solidarity and
Antagonism):
Taken in themselves...
the following characteristics of the parties in interaction are not important
factors in the generation of solidarity or antagonism:
1) The sex of the
part, in the sense that neither sex is more solidary or antagonistic than the
other.
2) The race of the
part, in the sense that per se none of the races is more antagonistic or more solidary
than the others.
...
6) High or low
intelligence, mental brilliance or ineptitude, with the possible exception of
mental defects... [which] make the mentally ill dangerous for the other parts.
7) Presence or absence
of literacy or illiteracy in the parts; of elementary, secondary or higher
education, when education consists mainly or exclusively in a culture of the
intellect, without training in forms of behavior, whether cooperative and
altruistic, or competitive and selfish.
...
10) The technology of
the parties, their life in an agricultural, pastoral or industrial age...
...we cannot say that
people of good health or high intelligence or a certain sex, age or race
show... greater solidarity or greater antagonism... Statistical studies on the
correlation between high or low intelligence and cooperation... do not
consistently result in high correlation rates... The brighter students from
elementary, secondary or higher education do not show... higher altruism than clumsier
students; nor do they show a greater antagonism. The same can be said of the
cultivated and the illiterate. Nor does historical induction authorize the
widely held view that an increase in elementary culture, scientific
discoveries, technological inducements, and democracy, reduce social antagonisms.
From the thirteenth to the twentieth century, schools, discoveries, inventions,
population culture and democracy have grown together; in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries... they increased in enormous proportions, and yet wars,
revolutions, conflicts between groups and crimes show that antagonisms have experienced
unprecedented growth... On the other hand, these data do not authorize anyone
to claim that these factors generate antagonism.
 |
| Jean-Jacques Rousseau |
It seems that sociological data do not prove the
assertion of the dominant ideology, that [domestic]
violence has its origin in an educational problem, associated to centuries of a
patriarchal culture (see paragraph 10 in Sorokin’s quotation).
As education in the dominant ideology prevails, male violence does not
diminish, perhaps even increases. Is this a consequence of this ideology, or of
social resistance to it? Serious studies should be carried out to verify this,
but the dominant ideology refuses to carry out such studies. Their claims are
true by definition and cannot be questioned.
The dominant ideology does not allow anyone,
especially judges and rulers, to think otherwise. This puts an end to freedom
of thought and expression, which are supposed to be the fundamental principles
of democracy, and have been replaced by the following:
Everyone has the right to
think whatever he wants, as long as he thinks the same as we do. And if they
don’t, they will become social outcasts.
The dominant ideology has established a
stifling censorship, a gag. Whoever does not belong to it, if they play any
role in society, cannot express themselves freely, and if they do, the supporters
of that ideology force them to retract their opinions or to resign their
positions.
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment