By this I mean, organize around some single person for leadership, or in other contexts focus on a popular figure. Even societies that tend to be described as more collectively-organized/oriented tend to do this.

People are people and are as flawed as one another, so this pervasive tendency to elevate others is odd to me. It can be fun and goofy as a game, but as a more serious organizing or focal principle, it just seems extremely fragile and prone to failure (e.g. numerous groups falling into disarray at the loss of a leader/leader & their family, corruption via nepotism and the like, etc.).

  • ALostInquirer@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d answer this by saying it is human nature.

    I follow where you’re coming from, however I’m quoting this little part as I always find arguments to “nature” suspect, especially regarding conscious entities which complicate this observation/thinking. You can probably guess where I’m going with this, that being, “Well, what is human nature?” which as you say isn’t a criticism/dig at you, it’s more of a personal quibble with the “nature” line of thinking.

    Nevertheless, I lean towards agreeing with you in the sense that it may be more related to an unreflective/unconscious social predisposition of humans specifically (possibly other social species as well in their own forms).

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well “it’s human nature” can indeed be a cop out. It shouldn’t be a discussion ender. And it shouldn’t be a justification. Murder is a part of human nature too. However it is a reality to be worked with. And one can ask, in what conditions is this behavior brought out, and in what conditions discouraged?