Tresy Kilbourne's recent post is very sensible, asking for proof of
the viability of a 'group' operating within the sole agenda of
individuals, which is what I am gathering is the idea of anarchy.

The problem with a society being based on the privileging of the
individual is that it presupposes the inherent 'goodness' and good
intentions of all individuals. Very Socratic, but I have grave doubts
of its reality. It also suggests an individual nature entirely free
of preconditioning, of socialization which closed the mind; it
suggests that all individuals are completely rational, that they all
base their decisions on hard data and never operate from a first set
of 'given and unexplored' assumptions.  I don't think that human
cognition works that way; but rather feel that it works within a
group-based logic, a group-based regime of knowledge. Certainly, the
individual is the agent to explore and critique these assumptions -
but most of us don't, and we can't live our lives in a constant state
of deconstruction.

Therefore - how can you have a society - without common and
reasonably stable values and forms of behaviour?   I think it is a
very serious error to split human behaviour into two poles - that of
the individual and that of the group, and consider that each can have
their own separate life and that one is good and one is bad
(individual vs state).  Rather - I see that, in the human biology,
the two forms are inherently different and inherently bonded and
interactive. You can't have one without the other; the goal is to
keep both sides flexible and interactive - but not to do away with
either.

Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University          Phone:  (819)822.9600
                                      Ext. 2424
Lennoxville, Quebec          Fax:    (819)822.9661
Canada  JIM 1Z7