I will try a discussion thread here and see if I am on the correct subject.

The description of this group includes the words social solidarity. I wonder how members of this group will like to define this. I think historically there are many attempts to organize people with a common goal. The nature of these movements seem to be linked very strongly with charismatic individuals or radical political philosophies. Are there ideas that have not been understood and tried before?

The second part is: how can one create social solidarity on for large groups without compulsion? It appears to work for some religious groups. I think this is because some people prefer to belong to groups even if they don't agree with everything the group represents. I don't think atheists are very willing to belong to groups.

Tags: freedom, order, social, solidarity

Views: 30

Replies to This Discussion

I agree. I see a challenge in advancing from the point of ideas of atheism to creating a community of solidarity. In the USA there is a group that I think has been trying this and they have a group on the Atheist Nexus
Ethical Culture. I am not a member yet. This organization seems to have a long history but until I was exploring atheism, I never knew of them.
One model for building social solidarity is the concept of the ecovillage or intentional community. Participation is not compulsory. Most examples of these community models are associated with New Age ideas. Here are some links to examples:

http://www.auroville.org/

http://www.findhorn.org/index.php?tz=360

Here again, I think that atheists will generally find that these ideas of community are too much like religion.
"...because they bought into the "individualism" fallacy,..."

The "philosophy" of individualism is one about which I need some clarification. I sense that there are different interpretations. When I look at Wikipedia, the interpretation there is close to what in the USA is known as libertarianism.

I wonder how the Atheist Nexus community would divide themselves if "forced" to identify themselves as individualists or collectivists. I think a decision would present a dilemma for some progressive "free thinkers"...
To me the dichotomy is the same as with the concepts of negative and positive liberties. I've always believed that we need a bit of both to build a healthy society. Thus I wouldn't put myself in either (individualist or collectivist) camp.
I agree that there must be elements of both. I am certain that much political debate is around how much of either is necessary (in the current circumstances).

I have this other strange idea of individualism supported by the collective versus individualism supported by individual social contracts. The latter is a manifestation of the libertarian and anarchic individualism described elsewhere. This is where "you are on your own" to work out arrangements for your health, happiness, and personal safety.

By individualism supported by the collective, I am attempting to express the idea of "this is who I am and the collective is obliged to support/protect me in it". This is perhaps social pluralism to an extreme. I will run into protests from progressives about this attitude, but where resources are limited, the collective can not support all desires for self-actualization of each individual in the community. So here again, how and where are the boundaries decided?
I think it would be a good idea, or at least an interesting experiment to give the American libertarians a fully-independent state to control as they see fit (hmmm, Alaska?). With only one restriction: don't make it a tax heaven. I bet ten years wouldn't pass before they delegate some of their responsibilities to a central government.

So here again, how and where are the boundaries decided?

Solve this big question once and for all, and you'll be the most revered person in mankind's history. Fail, and you'll be in good company.
I agree that solidarity in nature comes through genetics. By this we should understand that it is natural for genetically-related individuals to show solidarity. We can call this "family" and "clan" or tribe.

Modern industrial societies have often created alternate institutions around which people have developed solidarity. Nation/state is one. In the Post World War 2 era, another institution may have been an employer/corporation. In the USA, employment security has become more scarce. I have to think that this is one of the forces that drives many people in the USA to seek solidarity in church organizations. Religious communities tend to persist longer than jobs. Religious communities rarely "downsize", outsource, or require annual performance reviews. And if one church fails, here in the USA, it is always easy to find another religious community to join. I think there are more churches in most cities here than there are pharmacies...
In very simple terms the feeling of "belonging" is a strong draw for us homo sapiens. The churches call it fellowship and I have heard many people tell me that they go to church more for the fellowship than for the message. To form a successful atheist community in this, or any, country followers need to be provided with the feeling of fellowship.
I often hear about how secular European societies are. I also hear that the Nordic/Scandinavian countries in particularly are atheistic. What do the Nordic people do to create secular "fellowship". Is this significant in what makes them seemingly happier than most of the rest of us? Could it be that since few in Europe take religious beliefs seriously, that there is greater harmony in natural family units? Is there something else? Or is this all post-modern relativism?
The irony is the Scandinavian countries are actually less secular, constitutionally, than the US. There are still official state churches in both Denmark and Norway, and there was one in Sweden until 2000. An overwhelming majority of these countries' citizens officially belong to one of these churches, even when they profess no religion.
...as a matter of fact, Europeean societies are not more secular than the American one (think about the Polans or the Italians) - only it´s less a problem to be an atheist here, `cause most people simply don´t care in everyday life, but no Europeean politician or leader, who wants to be re-elected would ever confess to be an atheist, except for some of the communist ones (yes, we do have some of them here in Europe, and they don´t have to hide...). Maybe they´re simply to cowardly, or their marketing agencies are against a coming out, don´t know...
Here is the key and the obstacle for atheist fellowship: someone has to be willing to hold their tongue and accept other atheists even though they don't value the same things that I do and don't come to the same conclusions about things that I do. The one "elder" atheist in our local group that gets along best with others is the one who states his opinion and then always follows it up with a self-deprecating comment to show that he is open-minded, modest, and willing to listen to others. He is the one who creates the greatest sense of fellowship IMHO.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service